Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty (3 volume set)

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty VOLUME I

Donald L. Fixico EDITOR

Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Copyright 2008 by ABC-CLIO, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Treaties with American Indians: an encyclopedia of rights, conflicts, and sovereignty/Donald L. Fixico, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57607-880-8 (hard copy: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57607-881-5 (ebook) 1. Indians of North America—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Indians of North America—United States—Treaties—Encyclopedias. 3. Indians of North America—Government relations. I. Fixico, Donald Lee, 1951– KF8203.6.R74 2008 342.7308’72—dc22 2007027797 12 11 10 09 08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Senior Production Editor: Vicki Moran Editorial Assistant: Sara Springer Production Manager: Don Schmidt Media Editor: Caroline Price Media Resources Coordinator: Ellen Brenna Dougherty Media Resources Manager: Caroline Price File Manager: Paula Gerard ABC-CLIO, Inc 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an ebook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Manufactured in the United States of America

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

This important study of Indian treaties is dedicated to the people of my tribes, who have suffered, endured, and now prosper again: To the Shawnee, To the Sac and Fox, To the Seminole, and To the Muscogee Creek —Donald L. Fixico

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Board of Advisors Dr. Duane Champagne (Turtle Mountain Chippewa), former Director of American Indian Studies Center, University of California at Los Angeles Ms. Ada Deer (Menominee), Director of American Indian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and former Assistant Secretary of Interior of Bureau of Indian Affairs Dr. Clara Sue Kidwell (Choctaw), Director of American Indian Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Dr. Colin Calloway, Director of Native American Indian Studies, Professor of History, and Samson Occom Professor of Native American Studies, Dartmouth College Dr. Sharon O’Brien, Co-Director of Tribal Law Center and Professor of Political Science, University of Kansas

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contributors Donna L. Akers University of Nebraska, Lincoln Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi LeFlore, Greenwood Pushmataha Joseph P. Alessi United States Military Academy Old Briton Washakie (Pina Quahah, Scar Face) Laurie Arnold The Newberry Library House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953 Public Law 280, 1953 Termination Dewi I. Ball University of Wales, Swansea Doctrine of Discovery Government-to-Government Relationship Indian Removal McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 1973 Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977 Sovereignty Treaty United States v. Wheeler, 1978 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965 Winters v. United States, 1908 Helen M. Bannan University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Wauneka, Annie Dodge William Bauer University of Wyoming California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1852

www.abc-clio.com

Jean Bedell-Bailey Martin, South Dakota People v. LeBlanc, 1976 Yale D. Belanger University of Lethbridge Aboriginal Title Brant, Joseph Crowfoot Inuvialuit Final Agreements–June 1984 Phil Bellfy Michigan State University Constitution Act (Canada), 1982 LaDuke, Winona Métis Pontiac Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7, 1850 Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario Sally Colford Bennett Johnson County Community College Black Hawk Chouteau, Auguste Forsyth, Thomas Fort Harrison, Indiana Gaines, Edmund Pendleton Greenville, Ohio Jesup, Thomas S. St. Joseph, Michigan St. Louis, Missouri Tippecanoe River, Indiana Vincennes, Indiana Wabash River, Indiana Wells, William Donald R. Bennie University of Guelph Constitution Act (Canada), 1867 Ned Blackhawk University of Wisconsin, Madison Opechancanough

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

x

Contributors

Robert D. Bohanan Jimmy Carter Library Watie, Stand

Phillippe Charland Université de Québec à Montréal Canonicus

Robyn Bourgeois University of Toronto Self-Government Agreements (Canada)

Anjali Choksi Hutchins Grant & Associés Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867 Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada) Specific Claims (Canada) (with Lysane Cree)

John P. Bowes Dartmouth College Caldwell, Billy Pokagun Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833 Daniel L. Boxberger Western Washington University California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest

C. Blue Clark Oklahoma City University Law School Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

Jay H. Buckley Brigham Young University Clark, William Lewis, Meriwether

D. Anthony Tyeeme Clark (Meskwaki) University of Illinois Harjo, Suzan Shown Richmond Clow University of Montana Spotted Tail

Charles W. Buckner University of Memphis Deer, Ada E. William Campbell McMaster University Gadsden, James Jack Campisi Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829 Roger M. Carpenter National Museum of the American Indian Riel, Louis Uncas Martin Case Minneapolis, Minnesota Cass, Lewis Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota Rene Casebeer University of Washington Camp Stevens (Walla Walla), Washington Medicine Creek, Washington Alexandria E. Casey Michael S. Casey Graceland University Geronimo (Goyathlay)

www.abc-clio.com

Ryan L. Church Los Angeles, California Allotments Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978

Gavin Clarkson University of Michigan Curtis Act, 1898 Morton v. Mancari, 1974 Rice v. Cayetano, 2000 Michael C. Coleman University of Jyvaskyla, Finland Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930 Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Center for Desert Archaeology Eskiminzin Sacred Sites Lysane Cree Hutchins Grant and Associés Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960 Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada) Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement–September 6, 1993 Specific Claims (Canada) (with Anjali Choksi)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contributors Steven L. Danver Journal of the West Burke, Charles H. Indian Water Rights and Treaties Little Turtle Mankiller, Wilma Pearl Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968 Ouray Trust Responsibility Leigh Darbee Indiana Historical Society Harrison, William Henry Tecumseh Jennifer Nez Denetdale University of New Mexico Barboncito Manuelito Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868 David H. DeJong Prima-Maricopa Irrigation Project Deloria, Vine, Jr. S. Matthew DeSpain University of Oklahoma Doaksville, Oklahoma Jerome, David H. Pike, Albert Sonia Dickey Albuquerque, New Mexico Carson, Kit Long Walk, 1864 Alan C. Downs Georgia Southern University Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Massasoit Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 Antonie Dvorakova University of Chicago Black Kettle Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 28, 1867 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851

C. S. Everett Vanderbilt University American Indian Policy Review Commission Blount, William Doak’s Stand, Mississippi Lea, Luke Angela Firkus Cottey College Leupp, Francis Ellington Meriam Report, 1928 Oshkosh Andrew H. Fisher College of William and Mary Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974 Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon, 1969 Sohappy, David, Sr. Donald L. Fixico Arizona State University Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology, 2000 Cobell Case, 1996 Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act, 2005 National Museum of the American Indian, 2004 Sand Creek Massacre Site Return, 2002 Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock Café, 2007 Hugh W. Foley, Jr. Rogers State University Atoka Agreement, 1897 Bearskin, Leaford Harjo, Chitto Andrew Frank Florida Atlantic University McIntosh, William, Jr. Ritu Gambhir New York University Inuit Nunavut Land Claims Agreement–May 25, 1993 Granville Ganter St. John’s University Red Jacket

R. David Edmunds University of Texas at Dallas Northeast and the Great Lakes

www.abc-clio.com

xi

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xii

Contributors Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854

Tim Alan Garrison Portland State University Southeast and Florida

Ross Hoffman Trent University Indian Act of Canada, 1876

Deborah Gilbert State University of New York, Stony Brook Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes) Ridge, John Rollin

Tom Holm University of Arizona Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

Bradley J. Gills Arizona State University Doolittle Committee Trail of Tears Carole Goldberg University of California, Los Angeles Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

Arthur Holst Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Commerce Clause and Native Americans Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania

Kevin Gover Arizona State University Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

Chris Howell Red Rocks Community College Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794 Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814 Battle of the Thames, 1813

Pamela Lee Gray Purdue University Boudinot, Elias Fort Sumner, New Mexico New Echota, Georgia Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta) Ridge, Major

Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox University of Cambridge Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement–April 1992 Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to August 30, 1921

S. Neyooxet Greymorning University of Montana Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778

Cornelius J. Jaenen University of Ottawa Canada

Kimberly Hausbeck Nova Southeastern University Domestic Dependent Nation Indian Country Plenary Power

Bruce E. Johansen University of Nebraska, Omaha Canassatego Captain Jack Dull Knife Emathla, Charley Handsome Lake (with Barbara A. Mann) Hendrick Jackson, Helen Hunt Johnson, William Kicking Bird Metacom Seattle (Seath’tl) Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi) Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes, Inshta Theamba) United States v. Kagama, 1886

Karl S. Hele University of Western Ontario Bagot Commission (Canada) Deskaheh Dumont, Gabriel Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Treaty of Montreal–August 7, 1701 Troy Henderson Loyola University of Chicago Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contributors Phil Konstantin San Diego, California Hawkins, Benjamin

Theodore J. Karamanski Loyola University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois Michilimackinac, Michigan

Helen M. Krische Watkins Community Museum of History American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975

Anne Keary University of Utah Indian Rights Association (IRA) Longest Walk, 1978 Watkins, Arthur V. Michael J. Kelly Creighton University Jefferson, Thomas Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990 Supremacy Clause Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 United States v. Dion, 1986 United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980 Williams v. Lee, 1959 Penelope M. Kelsey Rochester Institute of Technology Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794

Joyce Ann Kievit Tempe, Arizona Opothleyahola Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole–April 28–July 19, 1866 Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835

www.abc-clio.com

Denise Lajetta The Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection of the University of Virginia Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969 Amanda Laugesen Australian National University American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian New Deal Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972

Lloyd L. Lee Arizona State University, West Campus Executive Order Reservations Guardianship/Wardship

Clara Sue Kidwell University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Indian Appropriations Act, 1871 Cooper, Douglas H.

Annie Kirby University of Wales, Swansea Collier, John General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887 Indian Reorganization Act, 1934

Janne Lahti University of Helsinki, Finland Fort Laramie, Wyoming

Laurie Leclair Toronto, Ontario Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873

Clara Keyt Arizona State University Banks, Dennis Means, Russell

C. Richard King Washington State University Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988

xiii

Stacy Leeds University of Kansas Indian Treaty Making: A Native View Peter D. Lepsch Monteau and Peebles Trust Land Tamara Levi University of Nebraska, Lincoln Annuities Pratt, Richard Henry Anne-Marie Libério University of Paris IV, Sorbonne Hitchcock, Ethan Allen Fred Lindsay San Francisco, California Adair, William P. Adams, Hank

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xiv

Contributors

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 Jemison, Alice Mae Lee Joseph Osceola United States v. Creek Nation, 1935 Patricia A. Loew University of Wisconsin, Madison Buffalo Sandy Lake, Minnesota Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825 Brad D. Lookingbill Columbia College of Missouri Lone Wolf (Guipähgo) Sitting Bull Jean-François Lozier University of Toronto Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760 Priscilla MacDonald Toledo, Ohio De La Cruz, Joseph Burton Barbara A. Mann University of Toledo Handsome Lake (with Bruce E. Johansen) Kurt T. Mantonya Topeka, Kansas Council Grove, Kansas Federally Recognized Tribes Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968 Patricia S. Mariella Arizona State University Property: Land and Natural Resources Aliki Marinakis University of Victoria Erasmus, George Henry Robert O. Marlin IV University of Houston, Clear Lake Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 Elk v. Wilkins, 1884 Ron McCoy Emporia State University Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko) Sitting Bear (Setangya or Satank)

www.abc-clio.com

James McIntyre Moraine Valley Community College Fort Harmar, Ohio Knox, Henry Mark Edwin Miller Southern Utah University Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) Nonrecognized Tribes State-Recognized Tribes John Bear Mitchell University of Maine Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (with Micah Pawling) Bradford W. Morse University of Ottawa Canadian Indian Treaties Daniel S. Murphree University of Texas, Tyler McGillivray, Alexander Caryn E. Neumann Ohio State University Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 Pitchlynn, Peter Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 Greg O’Brien University of Southern Mississippi Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849 Sharon O’Brien University of Kansas Indian Treaties as International Agreements Caoimhín Ó Fearghail University of Maryland Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883 Knut Oyangen Iowa State University Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811 St. Clair, Arthur Wayne, Anthony Vera Parham University of California, Riverside Oakes, Richard Linda S. Parker San Diego State University Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contributors Micah Pawling University of Maine Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (with John Bear Mitchell)

Bruce A. Rubenstein University of Michigan, Flint Chivington, John Milton

Larry S. Powers University of Memphis Indian Territory

Deborah Rubenstein St. Clair County Community College Dearborn, Henry Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe

Jay Precht McNeese State University Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946 Indian Claims Commission (ICC)

Susan Sánchez-Barnett Baltimore County Public Schools Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955

Edward D. Ragan Old Dominion University Powhatan

John Savagian Alverno College Aupaumut, Hendrick

Akim D. Reinhardt Towson University Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction (with John R. Wunder)

Daniel Edward Shaule Toronto, Ontario Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga–October to November 1923

Martin Reinhardt Reinhardt & Associates, Brighton, Colorado Trust Doctrine

Bradley Shreve University of New Mexico Bellecourt, Clyde Cochise Santa Fe, New Mexico Williams, Roger

Jon Reyhner Northern Arizona University Dodge, Henry Chee Southern Plains and the Southwest Justin B. Richland University of California, Irvine Mitchel v. United States, 1835 Barnett Richling University of Winnipeg British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty–April 8, 1765 Chad Ronnander University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire Dodge, Henry Paul C. Rosier Villanova University Northern Plains Ezra Rosser Loyola University of New Orleans Cohen, Felix S. Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970

www.abc-clio.com

xv

Steven E. Silvern Salem State College Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voight et al., 1983 Reserved Rights Doctrine Michael A. Sletcher Yale University Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775 Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684 Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789 Eric R. Smith University of Illinois, Chicago Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Right of Conquest Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil Gregory E. Smoak Colorado State University Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3, 1868

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xvi

Contributors James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement–November 11, 1975 Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999 Northeastern Quebec Agreement–January 31, 1978 St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996

Elizabeth Sneyd Royal Military College of Canada Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement–May 29, 1993 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement–May 29, 1993 Scott L. Stabler Grand Valley State University Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh)

Tim Watts Kansas State University Ross, John

Michael A. Stewart University of Oklahoma Treaty of Ghent, 1814

Gray H. Whaley Western Michigan University Dalles, The, Oregon

Gordon Stienburg University of Toronto Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 Paul H. Stuart Florida International University Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

Waziyatawin Angela Wilson University of Victoria, British Columbia Little Crow

April R. Summitt Arizona State University, Polytechnic Campus Cornplanter Satanta

John R. Wunder University of Nebraska, Lincoln Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction (with Akim D. Reinhardt)

Céline Swicegood University of Chicago Indian Removal Act, 1830 Andrew J. Torget University of Virginia Jackson, Andrew Parker, Quanah Tracey L. Trenam Aims Community College Assimilation Özlem Ülgen University of Sheffield Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 1980

www.abc-clio.com

Charles E. Williams Clarion University Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix–November 1768

Jason M. Yaremko University of Winnipeg Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2–August 1871 Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874 Canadian Indian Treaty 5–September 24, 1875 Canadian Indian Treaty 6–August 28, September 9, 1876 Canadian Indian Treaty 7–September 22, December 4, 1877 Canadian Indian Treaty 8–June 21, 1899 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty)–November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906 Canadian Indian Treaty 10–September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907 Gayle Yiotis National Museum of the American Indian Dawes, Henry Laurens

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contents VOLUME I Thematic Essays Regional Essays

VOLUME II U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties Important Treaty Sites Primary Source Documents

VOLUME III Historical Chronology Biographies Treaty Related Issues

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Volume I Introduction, xxi

Thematic Essays Governments and Treaty Making Indian Treaty Making: A Native View Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties Indian Treaties as International Agreements Historical Periods Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829 Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849 Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

5 13 27 39 49

69 83 95

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights Property: Land and Natural Resources Indian Water Rights and Treaties Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930 Related Treaty Issues Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements Canadian Indian Treaties

109

133 143 147 161 179

195 209

Regional Essays California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest Canada Northeast and the Great Lakes

225 235 243

Northern Plains Southeast and Florida Southern Plains and the Southwest

Resources, R-1 Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings, R-1 Tribal Name Meanings, R-7 Treaties by Tribe, R-14 Common Treaty Names, R-31

Selected Bibliography, B-1 Index, I-1

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

251 259 267

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP is the most commonly used phrase in the language of Indian treaties. The intent of the United States as a young country was to persuade Indian communities to deal only with the United States. Many things were unsettled following the American Revolution, and the tribes found themselves in the middle of it. In the early years of U.S.Indian relations, the tribes also had common interest with the British, the French, and the Dutch. Indian agents and other government officials in the United States negotiated more than four hundred treaties and agreements with American Indians; treaty talks occurred for more than one hundred years. Interestingly, Indian and white leaders met at various sites that often had been the meeting places for previous trading and council meetings. Negotiating in Native languages and English through interpreters was difficult, although some Native people spoke some of the white man’s tongue. Beginning in 1778 with the Delaware, when the United States negotiated its first successful treaty with an Indian tribe and ratified it, a historic precedent was set, one that has made Native Americans a unique minority in their own country. For the record, Indian tribes in what is now the United States also made treaties with the British, the French, the Confederate States during the Civil War, and with other Indian tribes. In Canada, the federal government negotiated seventeen treaties with the First Nations peoples, starting in 1871 and ending in the twentieth century. These consist of thirteen numbered treaties plus the four Robinson and Williams treaties. The mid-nineteenth century represented the zenith of treaty making; during the next twenty years, the practice sharply declined. A rider attached to a congressional appropriations act in 1871 ended the Indian treaty-making business in the United States, although agreements were negotiated until 1917. The Act of 1871 did not end the recognition of Indian treaties, however; it merely halted the treatymaking process. U.S.-Indian treaties often included more than one tribe, and some tribes signed many treaties.

www.abc-clio.com

There are 374 ratified treaties and 16 agreements. The first treaty was concluded in 1778; the last one, during the late nineteenth century. The shortest treaty is with the Kickapoo in 1820. The treaty is 16 lines long, with 8 Kickapoo leaders and 6 American officials who signed, involving $2,000 to be paid for Kickapoo removal. The longest treaty is the Treaty with the New York Indians of 1838 at Buffalo Creek in New York; that treaty is 15 pages long. The Potawatomi signed the most treaties of any tribe, a total of 26. The biggest gathering was the council held at Medicine Lodge, Kansas, during October 1867, at which 500 soldiers met with more than 15,000 Plains Indians gathered from the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche. The largest number of treaties were signed in 1825 and 1836, 20 each year; 19 treaties were signed in 1855, 18 in 1865, and 17 in 1832. In regard to categories, 229 treaties involve ceded lands; 205 are about payments and annuities; 202 include the phrase peace and friendship; 115 are about boundaries; 99 address reservations; 70 include civilization and agriculture; 59 are about roads and free passages; 52 address the sovereignty or the authority of the United States or tribes; 49 include allotment and guaranteed lands; 47 contain gifts, goods, or presents; 38 contain provisions on education; 34 contain provisions on hunting, fishing, and gathering rights; 28 authorize forts and military posts; 25 include trade; 12 address railroads; several include agents for the tribes; and a few treaties deal with one or more of the following: stolen horses, returning prisoners, slavery, returning criminals, intruders, scalping, alcohol, missions, and mail routes. Treaties between Indian tribes and the United States are binding agreements. For Native peoples, each step of the negotiation was important, not just the resulting words on a piece of paper. Indian agents, military officials, and officials of the Indian Office met with Native leaders to begin negotiations, which usually began with a council held at a previously agreed-upon site. To Native people, the chosen

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xxii

Introduction

site was important, and the talk itself was just as significant as the resulting treaty or agreement. The site itself, such as the one near Medicine Lodge in southwestern Kansas and Prairie du Chien in western Wisconsin, set the tone of the council. Medicine Lodge has made a lasting impression and is reenacted every five years. The first meeting, or council, between Indian and white leaders likely made or broke the tone of the talks. The council was a fundamental concept among the Indian nations, and tribal protocols varied from tribe to tribe. Unsure of how to approach the various tribes, federal officials depended upon local whites, guides, and traders to introduce them to the tribes in their areas. Familiar with the ways of the Indian tribe, these individuals advised officials how to approach Native leaders. In learning the protocol for dealing with tribes, federal officials experienced difficulty in meeting with more than one tribe at the same time. They made the mistake of trying to get enemy tribes to meet at the same council. Even tribes who met only sometimes, such as the Plains Indians, who gathered annually during the summer to hold the Sun Dance, had a mutual understanding of the importance of the arrival at camp, as exemplified by the Medicine Lodge Council in 1867. Dressed in their finest ceremonial garb, a tribe also sometimes wanted to be the last to arrive so that other tribal groups would acknowledge that an important group had arrived. Protocol is involved in any type of summit, council, or important discussion involving conflicting interests, especially if there are deep differences between cultures. In the general situation of treaty talks, white officials learned a lot about the importance of kinship relations in forming an agreement, especially if it resulted in an alliance between the two sides. Early treaties—those concluded before the mid-nineteenth century—were often peace treaties, for the United States wanted tribes to acknowledge their relationship with the new nation and abrogate relations with the British and the French. Bringing about peace following a battle or other conflict created balance between two opposites, and this tranquil state of existence fostered mutual respect between the two parties and a need for ceremonial acknowledgement. Thus, smoking the pipe was germane to solidifying the new relationship of nonconflict. The language barrier between the two sides caused great skills in diplomacy to be exercised. During the height of contact between Indians and

www.abc-clio.com

whites in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 250 indigenous languages were spoken. The role of interpreters, both Indian and white, became crucial to treaty negotiations. The varying protocols among tribes for holding councils compelled American officials to learn about tribal leaders before talks of a serious nature began. Cultural differences added to language barriers as problems arose, often intensifying the clashing views of Indians and whites over land. One perceived land and what it meant economically, and the other understood the earth philosophically and celebrated it with ceremonies. The same commodity became homeland for both sides, and ensuing treaties named who owned the land. A new culture of treaty making emerged from the older Indian way of holding council and talking. Gift giving played a crucial role in the early contact and negotiations between Indian and white leaders. Federal officials typically brought gifts of inexpensive items such as mirrors, metalwork, and beads to get the Indians into a peaceful frame of mind that would lead to the discussion of bigger issues, such as land cessions. As mentioned, at least forty-seven treaties contained provisions for giving gifts and presents. Officials understood the importance of generosity and sharing among Native peoples and used this against them, hence the “Great White Father” in Washington held a position of respect and generosity. The cultural difference between Indians and whites proved to be enormous. In addition to the language barriers, both sides operated from different mind-sets; each held different ideas about what was important for the negotiations and what the negotiations meant. Native leaders and federal officials had a challenging situation to overcome before they could begin successful discussions. It is said that, on one occasion Osceola, the noted leader of the Seminole in Florida, disagreeing with tribal leaders who signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson in 1833, stabbed his knife through the two pieces of paper on the table. This was his angry response to all treaties, letting others know that his mind was set on going to war. It is likely that this did happen since there is a hole in the original treaty kept in a vault at the National Archives in Washington. “Touching the pen” became a common occurrence during Indian treaty making. Native leaders were unable to write their names because they did not know the English language, and therefore white officials asked Native leaders to “make their

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

mark”—which was of little importance to American Indians, who believed that the spoken word was superior to any words on a piece of paper, which might be blown away by the wind or destroyed; the spoken word would always be remembered. Several treaty councils witnessed impressive oratory articulated by tribal leaders. This was not the white way. The majority of Indian treaties verify the marks made by the tribal leaders. In other situations, the leaders refused to hold the white man’s writing instrument, and the federal officials asked the Native leaders to touch the pen after the names were written by the official in charge. The most important concern for Native peoples in treaty negotiations was their sovereignty. Sovereignty is an important issue of concern resulting from the U.S.-Indian and Canada-First Nations agreements. The signing of a treaty creates binding responsibilities between both sides and includes the respectful recognition of each for the other. Theoretically, the relationship between the two sides is one of a sovereign forming an agreement with another sovereign—that is, government-to-government in a lateral relationship of similar status. The status is one of international law and based on each party to the treaty having faith in the agreement and recognizing each other as being sovereign. Trust is a meaningful legal responsibility between two nations and their people, and treaties established this reciprocal relationship. Both sides of a treaty agreement must abide by the provisions and must continue to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the document. That trust responsibility continues into this century, in the hands of the assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior, who supervises the Bureau of Indian Affairs for all tribes in the United States. Treaties were a systematic procedure for dealing with Indian tribes. By examining the history of these agreements, some assessment can be made about them in stages or phases. For example, treaty negotiations, talks, or councils were the first step in this system of agreements. During these important gatherings, significant Indian individuals were recognized and acknowledged so the representatives of the United States would know who they were dealing with. In some cases, such as the Prairie du Chien meeting, “making chiefs” occurred; this happened more than once when government officials persuaded certain individuals to sign for their tribes as leaders. The federal government operated on the political philosophy that a head of state represented

www.abc-clio.com

xxiii

a nation, thus an Indian nation must have one significant leader or chief. This was not the case with many tribes, such as the Muscogee Creek, the Ojibwa, and others, who had leaders for each town or village and settlements scattered over a vast region of the country. Discussion of the treaty’s provisions was another critical phase of Indian treaty making. Both sides met with an agenda of needs, according to their thinking, and they lobbied to obtain agreement from the other side. Some acute Native leaders saw that education was an important part of the future of their people and wanted educational assistance in the form of teachers. Common provisions included goods and annuities over a number of years and perhaps blacksmiths. Most of all, large sums of money were paid to the tribes for their lands. The next phase consisted of the results of treaties—some of which caused important changes, such as the exchange of enormous tracts of land for perpetual gifts, or changes in fishing or hunting rights on ceded lands. The treaties led to a new era in Indian-white relations and actually marked the decline of the strength of Indian nations. This decline became evident as tribes such as the Potawatomi, Delaware, Chippewa, and others signed several treaties with the United States. After 1800, the federal government almost always had the leverage in treaty talks. Strategies of treaty-making involve several motives, all of which resulted in the decline of the Indian nations. These strategies involved introducing the idea of one nation, one leader; setting boundaries; manipulating leadership; making chiefs; courting treaty signers; and giving gifts to influence tribes and their leaders. Such actions almost always were directed toward Indian men, not toward women (although, in many tribes, women held the authority to select their leaders). Peace was the main objective in the early U.S. treaties until about 1850. The federal government found it much easier to make peace with the Indian nations than to fight them, which proved costly, especially as great effort was needed just to find them. The United States signed 374 treaties but fought more than 1,600 wars, battles, and skirmishes against Indian tribes. The Navajo Treaty of 1849 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 were negotiated with peaceful objectives in mind rather than more land cessions. The Fort Laramie agreement involved multiple groups of the Northern Plains, Sioux, Gros Ventre, Mandan, Arikara, Assinaboine, Blackfeet, Crow,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xxiv

Introduction

Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Boundaries were set to keep them apart, with additional provisions for roads and military posts included as part of the treaty. The establishment of boundaries for tribes was another goal for government officials as they treated with Indian leaders. Many tribes hunted over vast territories; government officials were able to contain tribes within certain areas, and they reminded leaders of the boundaries established in the agreements. Officials introduced Native peoples to the idea of land ownership and individual ownership. In 1858, the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux signed a treaty in Washington, D.C., agreeing to new reservation boundaries. This led to the surveying of the tribal land for division into individual eighty-acre allotments. In this way, tribal lands were reduced in size. At times, the United States undermined and manipulated leadership to get the lands it wanted. The importance of kinship played a vital role in treaty making between Indians and the United States. Federal officials learned of the importance of kinship and symbolic bonds in tribal communities and used this knowledge to develop a tribal dependence on the “Great White Father” in Washington. When the leaders of tribes refused to negotiate, federal officials sought out other Indians who were more easily persuaded to sign treaty documents. Land acquisition was the principal reason for treaties and was pursued to such an extreme extent that, by the end of the nineteenth century, American Indians held less than 2 percent of the land that they had once possessed totally. The unleashed white settler became an uncontrollable force to consume Indian lands. Such was the settlers’ greed that federal officials were forced to deal with tribes, which resulted in many Indian removal treaties or war. A domino effect occurred as eastern tribes moved onto lands of interior groups, who moved onto lands of western tribes, and so forth. Expansion of the United States was another goal of government officials. During the Civil War, federal officials negotiated, and the government ratified, eighteen treaties that called for expanding the territory held by the Union. During the three years between March 1862 and March 1865, federal officials concluded treaties with the Kansa, Ottawa, Chippewa, Nez Percé, Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, Modoc, Omaha, Winnebago, and Ponca Nations. These agreements included land cessions and fur-

www.abc-clio.com

ther diminished the territories of the tribes. Indian lands were further reduced by the systematic creation of “permanent” reservations. Control of tribal movements was the final strategy and result of the treaties. With treaties in place and with military power greater than that of the tribes, the United States could enforce control over the weakened Indian nations. Once the leaders were undermined and control exerted over them, Indian superintendents controlled the Indians and conditions on the almost two hundred reservations throughout Indian country. Land was the central issue of U.S.-Indian treaties. As more settlers arrived from England and other countries, the need for more Indian land placed considerable pressure on the Indian tribes. A domino effect began to occur as eastern seaboard tribes of the Atlantic coast retreated inland, thereby encroaching on the hunting domains and farming areas of tribes nearby to the west. The expansion of white settlement across the Appalachian Mountains caused the newly formed United States to treat with the inland tribes. British agents and traders worked among the Indian nations to gain their allegiance and convince them to reject the proposed talks of federal officials. At the same time, other European interests in the form of French, Scots, and Irish traders proved successful in obtaining acceptance among tribes. These trading activities made it more difficult for the United States as more Americans pushed into the Ohio Valley and the back country of the Southeast. The most obvious kind of treaty called for tribes to surrender their lands. In less than thirty years, from 1801 to 1829, federal officials made thirty-one treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These cession treaties extinguished Indian title to all of the area east of the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico. Officially, treaties had to be ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Congressional ratification was most active during the 1800s, as federal officials met with Native leaders at an increasing rate. Treaty making fell into a pattern: More and more treaties were negotiated with eastern tribes, who were thus forced to keep moving westward; the Delaware, for example, were forced to remove at least nine times. Unratified treaties were agreements not confirmed by the U.S. Congress. Naturally, many agree-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

ments were submitted to Congress; most submissions were ratified, and some had their provisions amended. It is estimated that between forty-seven and eighty-seven treaties were unratified. Most Native leaders did not understand the ratification process and believed that all the agreements they made were official.

Organization of the Encyclopedia This encyclopedia is intended as a comprehensive reference tool for anyone interested in American Indian treaties with the United States. In these three volumes, the larger number of U.S.-Indian treaties, their lengths and complexity, and the complexity of Canada-Indian treaties are described. The volumes are organized in sections. The first volume consists of major essays that explain various perspectives on Indian treaties, and regional treaties. In the second volume, entries are included that describe each treaty; short entries address treaty sites and terms; and there are primary source documents of many treaties. The third volume contains a historical chronology, brief biographies of noted individuals involved in the treaties, and a section on treatyrelated issues.

Acknowledgments This three-volume project has been the work of many people. I have often felt like an academic Sisyphus, facing the enormous task of rolling the big boulder up the mountain. More than three hundred people have helped, supported, and written entries or essays for this encyclopedia. I am grateful for the help of the following individuals, who assisted with this project in the early years at the Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at the University of Kansas: research assistants Viv Ibbett, Melissa Fisher Isaacs, David Querner, and Elyse Towey. I appreciate the support given my work by Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shulenburger, former Associate Dean Carl Strikwerda, and former Dean Kim Wilcox at the University of Kansas.

www.abc-clio.com

xxv

I would like to express appreciation to the following individuals at Arizona State University, who have been helpful in the completion of this project over the last two years: President Michael Crow; Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Capaldi; former Provost Milton Glick; Vice President David Young, Divisional Dean Debra Losse; former Chairperson Noel Stowe of the History Department; and Chairperson Mark von Hagen. I am grateful for the support from the ASU Foundation, which sponsors my Distinguished Professorship of History, and for ASU as a leading university that supports scholarship in American Indian history. I especially want to thank Clara Keyt as a research and editorial assistant. I thank my research assistants during the final phase: Matt Garrett, Cody Marshall, and Kristin Youngbull; they have helped to track down a lot of information as well as doing other chores. With their help, after I moved to Arizona, the boulder was pushed the rest of the way to the top of the mountain in the sun with a smile. Appreciation is also expressed to all the contributors who wrote entries and the noted scholars who wrote the essays for the encyclopedia. Nor would this project have been possible without the patience, effort, and tremendous understanding of my good friend and editor, Steven Danver. Thank you to Caroline Price for the tremendous illustrations; and to April Wells-Hayes for the thorough copyedit of the manuscript. I wish all editors were like Vicki Moran who guided this project smoothly through all its production stages. I am especially grateful to my wife, Professor April Summitt, whose words of support encouraged me to complete this project. I am also grateful to my son, Keytha Fixico, who has patiently waited for me so that we could go to a movie and do other son-and-dad stuff. Always, I am grateful for the support of my parents, John and Virginia Fixico; and I want to acknowledge my four tribes—the Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Seminole, and Muscogee Creek—to whom this three-volume encyclopedia is dedicated.

ABC-CLIO

Donald L. Fixico Arizona State University

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Thematic Essays Governments and Treaty Making Indian Treaty Making: A Native View Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties Indian Treaties as International Agreements

5 13 27 39 49

Historical Periods Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829 Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849 Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871 Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

69 83 95

109

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights Property: Land and Natural Resources Indian Water Rights and Treaties Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

133 143 147 161

179

Related Treaty Issues Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements Canadian Indian Treaties

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

195 209

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Governments and Treaty Making

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaty Making: A Native View

L

ike other peoples, American Indians have always been concerned with preserving their cultural autonomy, retaining their land, and maintaining political sovereignty. One way tribes have preserved their legal rights is by entering into treaties and agreements with other sovereigns. Approximately 370 Indian treaties were ratified by the United States (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, 181). A number of other treaties that resulted from negotiations between the United States and Indian tribes were never ratified by the U.S. Senate and remain unenforceable. Indian tribes entered into treaties with other sovereigns for different reasons and with varying results. Treaties created military and political alliances, authorized trade, defined political and jurisdictional boundaries, divided natural resources, established and maintained peace, ensured community survival, and at times provided for the final dissolution of tribal governments. As a matter of tribal law and policy, a treaty is a binding agreement between two or more nations. Treaties are legal agreements that Indians expected to be binding (Wilkinson and Volkman 1975, 612). Although not every tribe negotiated treaties with the United States, the political consequences of treaty making and the legal principles that flow from court cases involving treaty interpretation continue to define the legal status of tribal governments within the United States today (Monette 1994, 617–618). Even the tribes that never entered into treaties with the United States benefit from the resulting legal framework of Indian nations as sovereigns. Today, there are more than 560 federally recognized tribes within the United States, including Alaska Native villages. Treaties were the foundation of federal recognition of Indian tribes as sovereigns (Porter 2004, 1601). Although treaties were common among the tribes in the southeastern United States, the Woodlands (eastern United States), the Great Plains, and the Northwest, many tribes in other regions did not routinely negotiate treaties with the United States. For example, few ratified treaties will be found between the United States and tribes in California or between the United States and the Pueblos of the Southwest (Brann 2003, 754–755). The United States did not enter into treaties with any of the Alaska Native sovereigns (Case and Voluck 1978, 16–17).

L

Treaties are legally binding agreements between sovereigns; they are also called compacts, covenants, conventions, and memoranda of understanding. Regardless of the nomenclature, these treaties have been a critical part of the American Indian past and are of continuing importance to tribal governments today. In fact, tribal governments continue to negotiate treaties and agreements with various sovereigns, particularly state and local entities (Deloria, P., and Laurence 1994, 381). U.S. federal policy ended treaty making with tribes in 1871. In March of that year, Congress placed a rider on an appropriations bill that ended the practice of Indian treaties in the United States (25 U.S.C. § 71). Prior to that date, the executive branch would negotiate treaties with the tribes, and the Senate would either ratify the treaty or not. Some treaties involved monetary payments to tribes, for which Congress needed to appropriate funds. The House of Representatives objected to this process because they were being asked to fund items included in treaties despite the fact that the House had played no role in treaty negotiations. Although the legislation of 1871 prohibited the federal government from negotiating further treaties with Indian tribes, the law on the books differs from what actually happened. Tribes continued as sovereigns, with territorial control over lands and natural resources. The federal government continued to have a government-togovernment relationship with tribes, and political negotiations continued, although not by means of formal treaties as they had before. As a practical matter, the United States continued to negotiate formal agreements with tribal governments well into the 1910s; however, rather than being submitted to the Senate for ratification, these new agreements were presented to Congress and adopted or rejected by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In this form, the post-1871 agreements with tribes took the form of congressional enactments rather than ratified treaties. The most common examples of these agreements are the tribally specific enactments to implement allotment on particular reservations. After lengthy negotiations with tribal governments, federal agents prepared formal allotment agreements with the consent of tribal officials. These agreements were formally presented to Congress and adopted as legislation

5 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

6

Governments and Treaty Making

instead of ratified as treaties. The federal-tribal diplomatic process, followed by tribal consent and federal approval, was essentially the same as the treaty-making process prior to 1871. Modern tribal governments continue to enter into agreements with other tribes and with state and local governments. Tribal and state governments frequently negotiated cross-deputization agreements between each other as two sovereigns. These agreements address the jurisdictional ambiguities of law enforcement in Indian country and typically involve shared law enforcement authority in otherwisedisputed areas. The agreements permit tribal police officers to make arrests on lands that would otherwise be under the jurisdiction of the state, and vice versa. In some areas of the country, where state and tribal jurisdiction depends on the ownership of neighboring parcels of land, these ongoing agreements are necessary to public safety and effective policing (Pommersheim 1995, 161). Tribes and states also enter into revenue-sharing agreements as a means of resolving conflicts of taxation jurisdiction (Fletcher 2004, 5–7). These agreements are typically referred to as compacts. Where tax jurisdiction is ambiguous or where collection of tax revenues proves burdensome, tribes and states have negotiations compacts in lieu of federal court litigation. One sovereign agrees not to pursue tax claims in court, whereas the other sovereign agrees to share tax revenues with the first sovereign. In some compacts, the sovereigns agree how the funds are to be spent in a mutually beneficial manner both for citizens of the state and for citizens of the tribe.

Treaty Making Past and Present For more than five hundred years, tribes have entered into treaties with the United States and with other international governments. Tribes entered into various treaties with Great Britain, Spain, and other European sovereigns prior to the American Revolution (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, 103). For centuries prior to European contact, tribes negotiated with other tribes agreements akin to the treaties they would later negotiate with European countries and ultimately with the United States. By the time Europeans arrived, tribes were already skilled in negotiating treaties and agreements for a variety of purposes. Tribes had formed military alliances and political confederations for centuries. Tribes also had elaborate trade routes that required access to vast territories, including lands

www.abc-clio.com

owned or controlled by other tribes. Tribes reached agreements that recognized boundaries between tribal lands and passage between those territories. All these negotiations predated European contact and influence. In fact, much of the Indian treatymaking process was passed from the tribes to their European counterparts, who freely adopted Indian treaty-making procedures and diplomatic decorum in the negotiations that followed. For instance, Indian treaty negotiations often involved long ceremonial meetings, during which past transgressions were set aside, friendships renewed, and gifts exchanged between the parties as a sign of goodwill (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1995, 685). These formalities and ceremonial gestures preceded any discussion of new parameters or terms of agreement. In this regard, American Indians influenced the manner in which future negotiations would take place, and federal negotiators embraced many of these concepts. The influence of European and subsequent U.S. treaty-making traditions also altered the way Indian tribes negotiated. There was a shift away from reliance on oral agreements toward a focus on written documents. Prior to European contact, the treaty negotiations of tribes were committed to memory, with the entire discussion constituting the binding agreement of the parties. The non-Indians’ insistence on memorializing agreements in writing altered the treaty-making process and, over time, changed the way tribes entered into the negotiating process. The result was a shift in focus: today, many Indian people might know the words of the treaty document but not the context in which the negotiations arose. Indians and non-Indians alike initially approached the early treaty negotiations with little or no knowledge of each other’s traditions or beliefs. The language barrier routinely would have made fluid communications nearly impossible, yet agreements were made. In coming together, each side influenced the treaty process of the other sovereign, and a unique system of negotiations emerged that included elements of both the Indian and the European traditions. The first treaty between America and an Indian tribe was completed during the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Fort Pitt (Treaty with the Delaware) in 1778. The Delaware made a formal alliance with the American revolutionaries, and the tribe permitted colonial troops free movement across their territory. In exchange, the Americans agreed to build a fort inside the Delaware Nation to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaty Making: A Native View

protect the community when soldiers were elsewhere engaged. Beyond its historical significance, this treaty was important because it established that tribes were sovereign entities with the power of diplomacy. It also established, in a legal context, that tribes were property owners with full dominion over territory, including the right to exclude others from their territory. The Delaware were in a position of strength when negotiating with the colonies. The relative strength of the Delaware diminished over time, and the tribe later found itself in a much weaker diplomatic position. Yet whether in strength or in weakness, the Delaware continued to negotiate treaties with other sovereigns to accomplish their goals. In 1867, the Delaware entered into a treaty with the Cherokee Nation that arguably led to a political dissolution of the Delaware (Treaty between the Cherokee and Delaware–April 8, 1867). The Delaware negotiated citizenship rights within the Cherokee Nation to preserve legally protected status for the Delaware people and to ensure a friendly place to settle. The Delaware story is important because it demonstrates how a sovereign can enter into treaties for various purposes at various times. Sometime tribes are in a position of strength, and sometimes tribes face political or physical annihilation. In each circumstance, the sovereign made a contextual decision and chose to negotiate a treaty to protect its interests or to mitigate a situation. Just as there was no uniform Delaware approach to treaty making over time, there is no uniform Native perspective on treaty making. In 1867, the Cherokee and the Delaware were both in politically weak positions relative to the United States. In fact, both tribes were pressured to enter into the intertribal treaty by the United States, and the treaty was executed by both tribes, not in Delaware or Cherokee territory, but in Washington, D.C., in the presence of, and for the benefit of, federal officials. The Delaware were being removed by the United States from their territory and relocated inside Indian Territory. Most of the Indian Territory lands had been accounted for, and the federal government needed land to implement the Delaware relocation. In a treaty with the United States, the Cherokee Nation agreed to accept the Delaware along with the Shawnee. The Cherokee agreed both to the relocations and to the inclusion of the Shawnee and Delaware people as citizens of the

www.abc-clio.com

7

Cherokee Nation as a result of a post–Civil War treaty with the United States. The Cherokee Nation, like the Osage, the Muscogee Creek, the Seminole, and other Indian nations, entered into treaties of alliance with the Confederate States in 1861. When the Civil War was over, the United States reestablished ties with the Cherokee Nation, but the Cherokee Nation agreed to several concessions, including the settlement of other tribes on Cherokee lands. These post–Civil War treaties were among the last official treaties between Indian nations and the United States. The post–Civil War treaty with the Cherokee is unique because it precipitates additional treaties between tribes on the request of the United States. Rather than using force to require the Cherokee Nation to accept the relocation of other Indian tribes, the United States acknowledged that the tribes would work out the terms of relocation and new citizenship in an intertribal treaty. This illustrates how, even toward the end of formal treaty making with the United States, tribes were viewed as sovereigns who negotiated with each other and with the United States as a means of diplomacy. The United States officially ended treaty making between the federal government and tribal governments in 1871 (25 U.S.C. § 71). The United States continued to make formal agreements, although they were not considered treaties, with tribes well into the twentieth century. One of the most common subjects of these agreements was the allotment of tribal lands. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the federal government pushed for Indian lands to be allotted. Rather than holding land in a contiguous land base with a property law system governed by tribal law, the United States pressured tribes to divide their lands and allow individual Indians to own lands without the control or oversight of the tribes. The U.S. Congress passed the General Allotment Act as a statement of federal policy; however, the federal allotment policy was not self-executing (Royster 1995, 7–15). Allotment of reservation lands was generally implemented only after elaborate negotiations and treaty making with the affected tribes. Some tribes were successful in avoiding the allotment of their lands altogether. The majority of tribes were pressured to allot their lands, and the details were outlined in tribal agreements with the United States. In fact, more than twenty agreements between the United States and tribal governments were made in the years 1876–1895. The United States did not

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

8

Governments and Treaty Making

stop making treaties; it simply relabeled the process and extended ratification rights to both houses of Congress rather than to the Senate alone. During this period, the tribes did not have the same political and military strength they once had had. By this time, tribes had typically been relocated to reservations or to diminished land bases. Even though very few tribes were militarily conquered by the United States, in previous treaties many tribes had agreed to become protectorates of the United States and had thereby abandoned any effort to maintain their own troops. With no military threat and with increased economic dependency of tribes on the federal government, the United States continued to gain political power over the tribes. With increased political power, the United States began to interfere with matters that had previously been internal to the tribe, including how the tribes governed themselves. Increased federal involvement in internal tribal matters quickly led to an effort by the federal government to change the land tenure systems inside Indian country. As such, the allotment agreements were heavily coerced by the federal government, and the tribes were powerless to demand many concessions. The tribes felt that, if they did not participate in the agreements, the federal government would unilaterally act to allot their lands. The tribes were faced with two options: either to allow Congress to pass a law permitting allotment of tribal lands without tribal consent or input, or to enter into negotiations with the federal government for the allotment of tribal lands on terms more agreeable to the tribes. Those tribes that entered into negotiations with the federal government for the allotment of tribal lands did so under duress. Although the tribes vehemently opposed allotment, they negotiated allotment to avoid being completely voiceless in the process. Tribal input in the allotment process was better than no negotiation at all (Leeds 2005, 64–66). The federal perspective in negotiating the allotment agreements was that allotment would end tribalism and prepare Indian people for ultimate citizenship in the United States. This would make Indian people members of a national minority and end the notion of tribal sovereignty. Therefore, many of the allotment agreements included provisions that dissolved tribal governments and provided for U.S. citizenship. The Atoka Agreement of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in 1897 is a prime example. The

www.abc-clio.com

agreement divided tribal lands into individual allotments and provided for the ultimate dissolution of the tribal government as a condition precedent to the extension of U.S. citizenship to tribal members. Several shifts in federal policy occurred after allotment. Since the 1960s, there has been a consistent trend away from the termination of tribal existence toward a policy of respecting tribal selfdetermination. Tribal governments have rebounded and have resumed the exercise of their inherent sovereign powers, including the right to negotiate treaties and agreements with other sovereigns. Indian treaty making continues throughout Indian country today. Many tribes continue to make agreements with state and local municipalities and with other tribes. Historically, the Cherokee Nation has completed twenty-two treaties since 1721, first with Great Britain and then with the United States. The contemporary Cherokee Nation continues to make treaties and currently maintains more than twenty ongoing agreements with state, county, and city law enforcement agencies. Most of the agreements were negotiated in the 1990s, and additional negotiations for new agreements are pending. The Navajo Nation and the State of Arizona have negotiated agreements to control the distribution of tax revenues between the two sovereigns and to cooperate in the delivery of youth and family protective services. The Navajo Nation is geographically located within three states, and each of the sovereign states has engaged in negotiations with Navajo Nation officials. Tribes in the Puget Sound and Great Lakes areas have recently negotiated intertribal agreements that ensure equitable rights to fish and wildlife harvests. Tribes throughout the country are currently engaged in intertribal cooperatives to restore buffalo herds, manage water resources, and clarify jurisdiction. A foundational principle of federal Indian law has been the role of the federal government in Indian affairs, to the exclusion of the states. Early cases and federal statutes preclude states from negotiating treaties with tribal governments. However, when formal federal treaty making came to an end, states and local governments increased their willingness to negotiate with tribes, realizing that treaties and agreements are mutually beneficial. In at least three areas, the federal government has authorized states to enter into agreements with tribes: (1) law enforcement, (2) the care and custody of Indian children, and (3) gaming. Tribes that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaty Making: A Native View

engage in casino-style gaming routinely negotiate with the states compacts that dictate revenue sharing, maintenance of roads, and other governmental infrastructure. These agreements routinely lead to shared law enforcement responsibilities and clarify jurisdiction of tribal and state courts. Tribes do not need authorization from the federal government to negotiate agreements with other sovereigns. The right to negotiate and make treaties is an important component of inherent sovereign powers, and tribes will continue to exercise this power into the future. Indian treaties are hardly relics of the past. The ability to negotiate and reach valid legal agreements with other sovereigns is a critical and active component of modern tribal sovereignty.

The Diversity of Tribal Perspectives The Native perspective of treaty making is diverse. More than 560 federally recognized tribal governments have entered into several hundred treaties, both ratified and unratified, with the United States. Many other treaties have been negotiated with tribes, states, and foreign countries. The sheer number of negotiations and resulting treaties suggests there is no single Native approach to treaty making. From tribe to tribe, the customs, laws, languages, and philosophies greatly differ. It follows that the concepts of treaty making and diplomacy are distinctive as well. Many differing factors lead to negotiations, depending on the tribes involved. Many tribes never entered into treaties with the United States. Other tribes entered into multiple treaties with multiple sovereigns. The Cherokee Nation, for example, has negotiated treaties with Great Britain, the United States, and the Confederacy, and with several Indian tribes, most notably the Shawnee and the Delaware. The Choctaw Nation entered into treaties with Spain prior to entering into multiple treaties with the United States. The Kashaya Pomo tribe in California entered into a treaty with Russia in 1817. Other tribes have entered into treaties with Mexico and Canada (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, 106–108.) Tribes sometimes negotiated treaties that were never ratified either by the United States or by their tribal citizens. The U.S. Senate failed to ratify eighteen Indian treaties after the tribes had agreed to all the provisions (Prucha 1994, 244). But in other circumstances, negotiations ended so that tribal leaders

www.abc-clio.com

9

could return home to get the proper assent from their tribal constituents. Tribes approached the treaty-making process in vastly different ways, according to the political, social, and cultural contexts. Tribal peoples, like their counterparts throughout the world, make political and diplomatic decisions for innumerable reasons. The viewpoints and motivations of the Indian leaders who negotiated and signed treaties are equally diverse. Like sovereigns the world over, tribes have leaders who fall into different camps. Some leaders are true statesmen who represent their people in difficult situations and make the tough decisions based on what they sincerely believe to be in the best interest of their constituents, with or without popular support. Other leaders succumb to greed and allow personal gain to influence their decisions, even to the detriment of the people they represent. Indian country has had a host of leaders in both camps. The Indian treaty-making process involved leaders who made sincere assessments of the difficulties faced by their nations and made decisions to enter into treaties even though the will of the people did not wish to enter into treaties. Other leaders entered into treaties that directly benefited them personally. In the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830 (Treaty with the Choctaw), Chief Greenwood LeFlore of the Choctaws consented to have the Choctaw people removed from their ancestral lands and relocated to Indian Territory. Nonetheless, he was permitted to remain in Mississippi and to maintain ownership of his lands (Foreman 1934, 26). Other tribal leaders received favorable land allocations and monetary payments in exchange for signing treaties that bound their nations to opposite fates. From the perspective of the United States, treaty making is a power of the executive branch of government subject to Senate ratification. Federal agents were sometimes sent out into Indian country to negotiate treaties. At other times, tribal representatives went to Washington, D.C., or other destinations outside their home territories to negotiate. From the tribal perspective, the authority of individuals or groups within the tribe to participate in negotiations varied. In several instances, the individuals recognized by the federal government as having the power to sign treaties were not the individuals who had the right to speak on behalf of the tribes. As a result, many tribal communities have not recognized certain treaties that the United States has ratified and implemented. The federal government

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

10

Governments and Treaty Making

has sometimes declared individual Indians chiefs for the purpose of obtaining signatures, regardless of whether the individuals were recognized by the tribes as the official leaders. The United States continued this practice well into the 1960s by appointing tribal leaders for purposes of securing signatures on leases and other legal documents. In these instances, the federally appointed “chiefs” were not popularly elected by the tribal communities. Some tribes had treaty councils or treaty delegations that were clearly sanctioned by the tribal people as spokespersons. The Chickasaw Nation, in the 1890s, issued official notarized certificates from the tribal government to individuals who were official delegates to Washington (Viola 1995, 81). These individuals had the right to negotiate on behalf of the people and the ability to enter into treaties and bind the people they represented. But unlike their federal counterparts, many of those who had the apparent authority to negotiate treaties were limited in terms of the subject matter they could concede and were limited in their powers. Some tribes had elaborate property law schemes of their own and would freely engage in land cessions and land trades. Contrary to some historical accounts, it was not a foreign concept to some tribes to purchase or exchange lands. Many of the tribes in Indian Territory in the late 1800s maintained elaborate property journals as a matter of official tribal government records. These journals are similar to the current county land records in which are recorded deeds and various types of land transactions, such as leases, easements, and land sales transactions. In these tribes, individual citizens could own the surface of the land and were free to alienate those lands to other tribal citizens. The underlying estate, however, was owned by the tribe to preserve the contiguous land base and protect territorial sovereignty from outside encroachment. Other tribes viewed land as a sacred object that could not be traded, sold, or otherwise negotiated. On this philosophy, the Lakota people have refused to accept money judgments due to them from federal court decisions in which they prevailed on staking claims. They view return of the land as the only solution. Tribes that embraced this philosophy historically would not have conveyed their lands to the United States through treaties. For such tribes, the authority of the tribal leaders would have been limited to other subject areas in diplomacy. Those tribal leaders might have possessed delegated authority

www.abc-clio.com

from their people to speak and negotiate with other sovereigns in matters of trade, war and peace, and political relationships, but they likely would have lacked the authority to convey real property. Other tribes did not believe that a small group of people had the authority to represent the full body politic of the tribe, and instead required the approval of general councils before decisions could be made. For instance, some treaties had provisions that affirmatively required subsequent amendments to the treaty to be submitted to a popular vote of the tribal people. A single delegate would not have had the authority to bind the tribe to treaty amendments (Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche of 1867; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 1903). Still other tribes were required to consult particular groups of community constituents, such as elders or women, before a final decision or deal could be completed (Berger 2004, 105).

The Treaty as a Negotiation Process In the early days of treaty making with Europeans and then with the Americans, the process of treaty negotiation was of more importance to the tribes than the legal document that followed. The tribal representatives tended to place more importance on the discussions between the negotiators, the context that brought the parties together, the fellowship and interaction between the people involved, and the oral representations and positive assurances made by the parties (Sullivan 2004, 684–686). Following the negotiations, the federal representatives would typically create a written document that constituted the agreement of the parties. Given the fact that few tribal representatives spoke English—the written language used in most Indian treaties—it was the spirit of the negotiations that were important to tribal communities, not the piece of paper that followed. Tribal leaders who could not read or write English routinely placed their marks in the form of an X on the treaty document to register assent to the terms of the document, despite the fact that they were relying on oral promises rather than on an independent review of the treaty text. Promises and affirmations that were made during the negotiations were as binding, from the Native perspective, as the document that followed. Therefore, tribes that later sought compliance with oral promises of negotiations were disen-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaty Making: A Native View

chanted with the non-Indians’ strict reliance on the words of the final, written version of the treaty. From the Native perspective, the spirit of the treaty should prevail over the treaty document itself. The spirit of the treaty was the crux of the promises made in good-faith negotiations and not the technical interpretation of words on paper. The federal courts, when first reviewing the treaties in legal proceedings, tended to agree that the negotiations and historical context were important in addition to the treaty text. The federal courts adopted a set of interpretive rules, to be applied in treaty cases, that give accord to the Native perspective of treaty making. These interpretive rules, known as the canons of Indian treaty construction, have been the basis for tribal legal victories for treaty enforcement. The canons require that Indian treaties and agreements be liberally construed in favor of the Indians. The canons require that the treaty be interpreted not literally but as the tribe would have understood the treaty at the time the agreement was made. In essence, the federal courts that have applied the canons of Indian treaty construction give life to the spirit of the treaty rather than relying solely on a strict interpretation of the text (Wilkinson and Volkman 1975, 623–634). Although the federal courts began developing these canons in the 1830s with the legal opinions of Justice Marshall, the canons have been applied recently to take into account the Native perspective and the negotiations themselves. In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, various treaties with the Chippewa were interpreted to preserve the right of certain tribes to hunt, fish, and gather in lands that were otherwise ceded to the United States. Relying on the canons, the Court concluded that the tribal rights survived despite the fact that, in the treaty, the Chippewa agreed to “fully and entirely relinquish and convey to the United States, any and all right, title, and interest, of whatsoever nature the same may be, which they may now have in, and to any other lands in the Territory of Minnesota or elsewhere” (Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 1999). Strictly interpreted, the treaty language could be viewed as a full cession of all rights to the land. The Court, however, went beyond the written words in the treaty and considered the larger context, giving weight to the tribe’s perspective. The tribe would not have understood, at that time, that they were giving

www.abc-clio.com

11

up their right to hunt and fish. The case involved several treaties with Chippewa Indians in the Great Lakes region: the Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; the Treaty with the Chippewa–August 2, 1847; and the Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854.

The Force and Effect of Treaties Many of the guarantees in Indian treaties are promises that were intended in perpetuity. They are typically not limited by time. The Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830, contains language typical of the time period to indicate that the treaty was final and that no further territorial incursions would occur: The Government and people of the United States are hereby obliged to secure to the said Choctaw Nation of Red People the jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may be within their limits west, so that no Territory or state shall ever have a right to pass laws for the government of the Choctaw Nation of Red People and their descendants; and that no part of the land granted them shall ever be embraced in any Territory or State. (ibid. at Article 4) Despite the permanent language in the treaties that suggests the treaties will live on forever, the United States has failed to comply with most treaties, at least in part. History tells us that the United States always breaks treaties but that Indians believed that a treaty was sacred and could not be broken. This story is far too simplistic. Context and circumstances change for tribes just as they change for sovereigns the world over. And, although the federal government’s history of unilaterally breaking treaties is well documented, changing tribal circumstances and reversals of tribal diplomatic decisions should also be noted. Tribes, too, have abrogated treaties unilaterally. As previously noted, some tribes entered into treaties with competing factions in order to secure a favorable stance with the victor of a foreign war. During the American Revolution, tribes entered into treaties of alliance with both Great Britain and the colonies. Allegiances change, and treaties are renegotiated. During the American Civil War, tribes with long histories of relations with the federal government entered into treaties with the Confederacy.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

12

Governments and Treaty Making

Conclusion The treaty-making process between the United States and Indian tribes has evolved over the centuries and continues today in various forms. The most important legacy of Indian treaties is the legal framework they created. American Indian tribes are governments that have negotiated with other sovereigns in an array of political contexts. Modern tribal governments are the outgrowth of indigenous nations with centuries of experience in diplomacy both internationally and domestically. Stacy Leeds References and Further Reading Berger, Bethany R. 2004. “Indian Policy and the Imagined Indian Woman,” 14 Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 103. Brann, Amy C. 2003. “Comment, Karuk Tribe of California v. United States: The Courts Need a History Lesson,” 37 New England Law Review 743. Case, David S., and David A. Voluck. 1978. Alaska Natives and American Law. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Clark, Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Debo, Angie. 1970. A History of the Indians of the United States. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Deloria, P. S., and Robert Laurence. 1994. “Negotiating Tribal-State Full Faith and Credit Agreements: The Topology of the Negotiation and the Merits of the Question,” 28 Georgia Law Review 365. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 1. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fletcher, Matthew L. M. 2004. “The Power to Tax, the Power to Destroy, and the Michigan Tribal-State Tax Agreements,” 82 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 1.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Foreman, Grant. 1934. The Five Civilized Tribes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1975. Indian Treaties 1778–1883. New York: Interland Press. Leeds, Stacy. 2005. “By Eminent Domain or Some Other Name: A Tribal Perspective on Taking Land,” 41 Tulsa Law Review 51. Monette, Richard A. 1994. “A New Federalism for Indian Tribes: The Relationship between the United States and Tribes in Light of Our Federalism and Republican Democracy,” 25 University of Toledo Law Review 617. Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Porter, Robert. 2004. “The Inapplicability of American Law to Indian Nations,” 89 Iowa Law Review 1595. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Richter, Daniel K., and James H. Merrell, eds. 2003. Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their Neighbors in Indian North America 1600–1800. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Royster, Judith V. 1995. “The Legacy of Allotment,” 27 Arizona State Law Journal 1. Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657. Viola, Herman J. 1995. Diplomats in Buckskin: A History of Indian Delegations in Washington City. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles, and John M. Volkman. 1975. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: ‘As Long as the Water Flows, or the Grass Grows Upon the Earth—How Long a Time is That?’” 63 California Law Review 601. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1996. “‘The People of the States Where They are Found Are Often Their Deadliest Enemies,’ The Indian Side of the Story of Indian Rights and Federalism,” 38 Arizona Law Review 981.

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

F

F

or nearly one hundred years of federal treaty making with the Indians, from 1778 to 1869, the federal government’s main objective remained constant: acquisition of as much Indian land as possible while minimizing the cost in American lives and dollars. The U.S. Senate ratified more than 365 Indian treaties during this period in pursuit of Indian land and other resources. The federal government chose treaties as the primary vehicle for Indian relations, not only because the European powers that settled North America had established such a tradition but also because treaties were deemed the most effective instrument for achieving American land acquisition goals while minimizing the loss of non-Indian lives. Other objectives of federal treaty making changed over time, corresponding to changes in broader federal Indian policy. For example, in the early years, an important policy aim was to ensure the loyalty of Indian nations to the Americans rather than to compete with European powers such as England and Spain. During the middle period, the goals of peace and land acquisition were pursued through a policy of removing Indian nations to reservations far from non-Indian communities. Toward the end of the treaty-making period, when tribes could no longer threaten alliance with European powers and non-Indian settlement westward made separation impossible, treaty provisions to facilitate assimilation of tribal members into nonIndian society became more central to the treatymaking process.

Establishment and Conduct of Indian Relations through Treaties When America declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776 and embarked on the war to free itself from British rule, one of its major challenges was to ensure that tribal forces would become allies or at least remain neutral. To attack British troops positioned on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, the Continental Army needed to cross through territory of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederation) and the Lenni Lenape (the Delaware) in New York and the Ohio valleys. But the obstacles to securing the friendship or neutrality of these Native nations were formidable. During the pre–Revolutionary War period, Britain had been far

more respectful of tribal sovereignty and property than had the colonists. In particular, settlers from the colonies had persistently encroached on tribal lands and engaged in fraudulent trade practices with the Indians, prompting violent Indian response and calls from the colonists for British military aid. Britain intervened to prevent such offenses to the tribes because the alternative was involvement of British troops in costly warfare, and because otherwise the Indians might favor France or Spain, which also had interests in North America. Not surprisingly, the Indian nations viewed Great Britain more favorably than they did the new government representing the settlers. To deal successfully with the tribes, the former colonies knew that unity was essential. Tribes could all too easily exploit rivalries among the colonies through separate dealings. Indeed, British policy had long been to take advantage of divisions among the tribes. Thus, although individual colonies had interests in land acquisition and trade that drew them toward individual arrangements with Indian nations, the newly confederated colonies made collective overtures. And because of tribal expectations born of decades of relations with the British, the form such overtures took was predetermined. Appointed representatives of the newly united colonies, known as commissioners, invited large numbers of tribal representatives from particular regions to assemble for what was sometimes called a council or a treaty. The Continental Congress, which appointed these commissioners, assigned three different groups to deal with Indians in the north, south, and middle areas of the new nation. In each sector, the commissioners carried on Native-inspired ceremonial practices first introduced by the British, such as condolence ceremonies expressing grief over one another’s losses, presentation of gifts and strings of wampum, and speeches of goodwill. Out of these first councils emerged an informal alliance with the Oneida and a formal written treaty with the Delaware, signed and sent to Congress in 1778. This treaty was the first the Americans concluded with an Indian nation and the only one entered into during the Revolutionary War. Due to wartime exigencies, the Treaty of Fort Pitt (Treaty with the Delaware) focused more on military and political relations than on land acquisition. But even that treaty addressed

13 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

14

Governments and Treaty Making

property issues, as it acknowledged and guaranteed the territorial rights of the tribe. During the brief period of the Articles of Confederation, from 1781 to 1787, American treaty making continued, but the government’s practices during that time did not set precedents for subsequent government policy. Although most Indian nations had remained allied with the British during the Revolutionary War, the tribes had not participated in the treaty of peace in 1783 between the United States and Britain. Weakened by war but no longer immediately threatened by the British, the American government wanted to dictate terms of peace to the Indians while still minimizing further hostilities. The dominant view in Congress was that the Indians had been conquered and therefore surrendered their lands and other claims. Secretary of War Henry Knox warned, however, that forcing terms on the tribes would require military engagement that risked either defeat or a bad reputation abroad. Congress again chose treaties as the preferred means of dealing with the tribes and again appointed commissioners to “negotiate” with the tribes. This time, however, the commissioners’ directions were to insist on treaty terms involving land cessions and prisoner return rather than to secure the assent of the tribes. Commissioners abandoned most of the pretense of adhering to Native ceremonies associated with treaty making. As a result of this approach, although the Continental Congress concluded eight treaties with Indian nations during this period, Indian dissatisfaction with treaty terms precluded the possibility of a real and lasting peace. Furthermore, complicating and defeating American treaty-making initiatives during this period was uncertainty about the role of states in negotiating treaties with the Indians. The provision in the Articles of Confederation dealing with control of Indian affairs was ambiguous, at once declaring and then disclaiming congressional power over Indians who were “members of the states.” To add to the confusion, the section ended with a proviso that “the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated.” States such as New York took this language to mean that they had authority, under the Articles of Confederation, to make their own treaties and proceeded to seek land cessions on their own, capturing lands that settlers had occupied in violation of congressional bans and federal treaty terms.

www.abc-clio.com

When Native resentment over the post–Revolutionary War treaties began to manifest itself in pantribal alliances and threats of war, Congress and the administration reassessed their approach to treaties. Framers of the new Constitution of 1787 strongly affirmed exclusive federal power over Indian affairs. In Article I, Section 8, known as the commerce clause, the Constitution linked congressional control over Indian relations to similar authority over relations with foreign nations and among states. Implicit in this linkage was the view that Indian tribes, like foreign countries and states, were governments and to be dealt with as such. The Constitution did not directly specify, however, that these dealings with Indian nations were to be by treaty. Its references to treaties were more general. The Constitution authorized the president “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”; prohibited states from making treaties; and acknowledged that properly made treaties would be the supreme law of the land. In his first administration, however, George Washington continued the pattern of conducting most Indian relations via treaty and instituted the same ratification process for Indian treaties that was used for foreign treaties. Until the Senate provided its ratification by two-thirds vote, the treaties could not take effect. A remaining question was how much the Senate would become involved in the treaty negotiations themselves. President Washington made some early attempts to engage the Senate in planning for treaty negotiations. Because the treaties entailed significant U.S. financial commitments for land purchases, gifts, payment of Indian debts to traders, and other purposes, as well as drawing of boundaries in which settlers and speculators had an intense interest, political support was essential. President Washington soon realized, however, that securing detailed advance instructions from the Senate would be cumbersome and detrimental to U.S. strategic interests. Later in his administration, he limited his requests to more general guidance. The return to bilateral, treaty-based Indian relations under the new Constitution reflected a hardnosed calculation of the relative costs of war and land purchases. Washington’s secretary of war, Henry Knox, estimated that the cost of fighting the Indians would be at least $2 million and the loss of lives immeasurable. In contrast, eliminating the Indians’ cause for grievance by compensating them for land confiscated under earlier treaties would cost

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

less than $20,000. Knox’s analysis is manifest in the earliest treaties of this period. Notably, land that the United States had claimed by right of conquest of the Iroquois and the Northwest tribes in the Treaties of Fort Stanwix (Treaty with the Six Nations) and Fort McIntosh (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.) of 1784 and 1785 were purchased from those same Indian nations via the two Treaties of Fort Harmar in 1789 (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.; Treaty with the Six Nations). During this early period under the Constitution, federal legislation accompanied treaties as a means of conducting Indian affairs but did not really detract from bilateral agreements as the primary means of carrying on relations with the tribes. The only major piece of legislation, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1790, aimed its mandates at non-Indians more than at the tribes. It prohibited trade with the Indians absent a federal license, required federal approval of all land transactions with the tribes, and applied federal criminal laws to Indian country except where the crimes were committed by one Indian against another or where an Indian offender had already been punished by the tribe itself. These provisions actually facilitated treaty relations by removing causes for conflict between the United States and the tribes, such as fraudulent trading deals and improperly authorized land transactions. Many violations of the Non-Intercourse Act were simultaneously treaty violations. The fact that the United States chose to deal with Indian nations via treaties does not really answer the question of whether these treaties were truly voluntary, bilateral agreements. It was important to the federal government, both to avoid hostilities with the tribes and to present an honorable face to European nations, to deal with Native nations on a consensual basis. At the same time, the political pressure from settlers and speculators was intense to expand the territory available for white settlement. And the United States, saddled with Revolutionary War debts and a new nation to build, was eager to gain control of tribal lands so it could resell to the settlers and speculators at a profit. From the earliest years of English settlement, it had been accepted legal doctrine that the tribes had some kind of property claim to the lands they occupied, one that must be extinguished before Europeans and their descendants could take full title. Presumably, that meant that the Indians could refuse to sell. And the federal government, like its British colonial predecessor, had decreed that no land could

www.abc-clio.com

15

be transferred without its permission. Thus, the burden of overcoming Indian resistance to sale fell upon the federal government. The settlers and speculators did not really care how the land became available for non-Indian settlement and purchase; they just wanted more land at low cost and without the hazards of war. Because Indians were not U.S. citizens capable of voting, the federal government was politically accountable only to the non-Indian population and adopted methods suited to meet the settlers’ and speculators’ demands. Federal treaty negotiators resorted to an array of sharp or unsavory methods for obtaining Indian treaties. They also took advantage of government policies, as well as practices by settlers and traders, that undermined tribal resistance. Finally, the United States used its superior control over its own populace to give itself the sole power to purchase Indian land, in what is known as a monopsony. The cumulative result of these stratagems was the wholesale transfer of tribal lands to the federal government via treaty, with minimal compensation to the tribes. The shadier methods of acquiring land by treaty included taking advantage of superior knowledge of the English language, dealing with individuals or groups that were unauthorized to sell, offering secret “gifts” to tribal leaders, playing off one tribe against another, and threatening force. The Cherokees complained, for example, that in their treaty of 1791 the federal negotiator had inserted rights for the Americans without the Cherokees’ knowledge. They further charged that the negotiator had bribed the interpreter to recite the land cession as involving a smaller amount of land than was actually inserted in the treaty and the payment for the land as twice the amount written in the treaty. The United States frequently tried to locate the most agreeable tribal leader to conclude land cessions, paying little attention to tribal political organization or the legitimate authority of the individual(s) involved. Fortunately for the United States, the tribes lacked any effective mechanisms for restraining unauthorized individuals from making such deals. In 1825, after the head chiefs of the Muscogee Creek Nation had refused to sell tribal lands and had departed the treaty council, the treaty commissioners nonetheless pronounced the council a legal one and proceeded to make an agreement with a minor chief. The fact that the treaty offered protection to the signer suggests that the treaty commissioners knew their transaction was with a person of dubious

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

16

Governments and Treaty Making

authority to bind the Muscogee Creek Nation. In 1835, with the United States determined to fulfill its promise to Georgia to remove the Cherokee from that state, the United States deliberately chose to treat with Major Ridge, the leader of a minority bloc of Cherokee supporting removal, rather than with John Ross, the staunch opponent of removal who had a majority following. The treaty that was concluded with the Ridge faction specified that it would not be binding unless approved by the Cherokee Nation in council. But after the council met and rejected the treaty, the United States sent notice to the Cherokees to meet with federal negotiators to conclude a new treaty. This notice provided that any Indians who did not attend would be deemed to have approved any treaty signed by the negotiators. When the Ross party boycotted the gathering, leaving only a small number of Ridge supporters, the United States signed a treaty with them anyway— the Treaty of New Echota (Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1935). The preamble to the treaty justified U.S. reliance on only a small portion of the Cherokee Nation by noting the history of negotiations with the Cherokee and the prior warning that nonattendance would be treated as assent to the council’s actions. After outraged Cherokee leaders complained of the methods used to secure the treaty, Senator Henry Clay sought to prevent its ratification, proposing that the Senate refuse to approve it based on the absence of authority on the part of the Cherokee who signed it. The Senate rejected this proposal by nearly two to one. Sometimes the United States bought off the legitimate tribal leaders with side deals, which might or might not be acknowledged in the language of the treaty. In 1790, for example, the Treaty of New York with the Creeks ceded most of the Creek lands in Georgia to the United States. “Secret articles” in the treaty guaranteed a perpetual salary of $1,200 per year to the head chief of the Creek and perpetual salaries of $100 per year to lesser chiefs. The Chickasaw treaty of 1805 entailed federal payments of nearly $5,000 to assorted tribal leaders, a common feature of treaties made at that time. And a treaty of 1855 with Pacific Northwest coast tribes (Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc.–January 22, 1855) (Kappler 1975, 669–673) used special cash annuities for the chiefs to overcome tribal hostility and secure concessions of land. American leaders such as Andrew Jackson understood, however, that the bribery must be kept secret, or the influence of the chiefs would be destroyed.

www.abc-clio.com

Another frequently successful strategy of the United States was to exploit intertribal conflicts over claims to land. Sometimes overtly, sometimes implicitly, the United States would warn tribes that, if they did not enter into treaties of cession for particular tracts, the federal government would make a treaty for the same land with a competitor tribe. Thus, the Muscogee Creeks were surprised to learn that the United States had purchased their lands from the Choctaws. And in 1818, the United States sought to persuade the Cherokees to sell by threatening to make a deal for the very same land with the Chickasaws. William Henry Harrison was a notoriously successful practitioner of this strategy, taking advantage of the fact that villages sometimes included members of several tribal groups that shared common areas. He would induce representatives of one group to make a cession, threatening others that they would get nothing if they refused to go along. That is how he secured a cession of Piankashaw lands in southwestern Indiana in 1804. Theoretically, the tribe that had not made the first deal could have held out for a separate payment. But the United States stuck to a policy of paying less for later claims. And in any event, once settlers entered the land following the first sale, the land became depleted of game and less valuable to the remaining tribe. Not only did the United States seek to impress the tribes with its economic and military might by sending troops along with treaty negotiators, it sometimes resorted to threats of force to secure treaty cessions of land. In negotiations with the Choctaw in 1820, Andrew Jackson found the tribal leaders adamantly opposed to selling their land. He informed them that the United States would wage war, destroy them, and remove them despite their opposition. More circumspectly but no less effectively, in 1809 William Henry Harrison informed the reluctant Miami that, if they continued to refuse to sell their land, he would “extinguish the council fire.” Such threats are antithetical to the notion of a free exchange. The federal government also took advantage of private non-Indian practices that made treaty making and land cessions more advantageous for the American side. Prominent among those practices were illegal settlement by non-Indians on tribal lands and trading with the tribes that resulted in hefty Native debts. Illegal settlement by non-Indians weakened the Indians’ position in treaty bargaining in two ways.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

First, the presence of non-Indians on tribal lands brought new microbes, to which the Natives had little resistance. Death and disease left the tribal lands abandoned or worth little to those Natives who remained. Second, non-Indian presence and settlement, especially agricultural pursuits and animal husbandry, depleted the game that supplied an important component of the Natives’ livelihood. Land cleared for agriculture diminished the forest habitat for wild game, non-Indians hunted the game, and domesticated livestock competed with the game for food. After the game disappeared or fled elsewhere, the lands held less value for the tribes, and the Indians were far more willing to enter into treaties of cession. For the settlers, the lesson was clear: trespassing on tribal lands would ultimately be rewarded by the availability of new land. It is difficult to imagine a greater incentive for illegal non-Indian settlement on lands previously guaranteed to the tribes. Illegal settlement persisted despite the federal prohibitions on such settlement and the concern of the United States that squatters would infuriate the Indians and precipitate costly wars. Of course, legal settlement had some of the same impact as illegal settlement—non-Indians reaching the furthermost reaches of land purchased from the tribes would also spread disease and thin the game, yielding further land cessions. And the United States encouraged such settlement by selling lands purchased from the Indians at a discount, hoping for large benefits down the line through future land sales. The other private practice that the United States saw as a boon to treaty negotiations was the trading that took place between non-Indians and tribe members. Contact with Europeans had left the Indians dependent on trade goods such as guns and cooking utensils; and after the decline of the fur trade due to depleted stocks of game, land was the major asset the tribes could use to exchange for such goods. As Indian trade debts accumulated, the traders pressed the United States to arrange land cessions that would put cash in the hands of the Indians, who would in turn be obliged to use the funds to repay their debts. Alternatively, traders recommended cutting out the middle step and giving the cash directly to them. For example, by the end of the eighteenth century a single trading firm, Panton, Leslie and Company, had acquired many of the debts owed by members of the southeast tribes. Panton, Leslie lobbied the U.S. government to make treaties in which the Americans would pay off tribal debts in

www.abc-clio.com

17

exchange for cessions of land. The treaties of 1805 between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek, in which the United States acquired eight million acres of land, conformed to this pattern. After 1825, nearly all the treaties signed with tribes in the Old Northwest Territories, including the Sac and Fox, the Miami, and the Ottawa, allowed for traders’ claims. The United States was sometimes skeptical of the amounts the traders claimed, demanding investigations and insisting on documentation. And disputes over the traders’ practices sometimes precipitated conflict with the tribes, leading the United States to place limits on the exchanges through the Non-Intercourse Acts and otherwise. But the accumulation of debts provided incentives both for the Indians to cede lands in the treaties and for traders to lobby for such treaties. Perhaps the most powerful factor producing land cession treaties with the Indians was the federal government’s effective control over who could purchase lands from the tribes. Like the British, the United States determined that it would be highly advantageous to the non-Indian population as a whole to restrict the market for Native lands. Partly it was a military calculation. Speculators and other private parties that had done business with the tribes in the early decades of European settlement sometimes cheated the Indians, misstating boundary lines or providing defective goods in exchange for the land. The tribes often responded to such practices with attacks on local settlers, and the settlers expected the U.S. military to come to their rescue. Requiring federal permission for the sale of tribal lands, as provided in the Non-Intercourse Acts, helped prevent such outbreaks. From a business point of view, the absence of multiple bidders for tribal lands left the tribes at the mercy of the federal government. Once the War of 1812 eliminated the opportunity for Native dealings with Great Britain or any other European power, the United States had a monopsony—a buyer’s monopoly. Freed from the possibility of bidding wars, the non-Indian population could benefit from rockbottom sales prices to the United States, so long as the United States was willing to forgo substantial profits. In fact, the United States was in such a superior bargaining position by virtue of its monopsony that it could afford a 5,000 percent markup on the land and still sell at prices advantageous to the settlers. As Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton noted in 1826, the United States was buying land

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

18

Governments and Treaty Making

from the Indians at two cents or less per acre and selling it to settlers for $1.25 per acre or more. Some tribes did better, especially as they came to value their remaining land and to resist parting with it. But the Senate was vigilant in amending treaties to reduce the size or duration of payments, and the U.S. Claims Commission, more than one hundred years later, awarded more than $800,000,000 to tribes mostly for “grossly inadequate and unconscionable” payment for ceded lands. The treaty system of pressure, trickery, and hard bargaining, coupled with the outward form of bilateral, consensual relations, suited American interests well. Straightforward conquest would have cost too much in lives and dollars. Bargaining in accordance with honorable principles of contract would have cost too much as well and would have taken more time than eager settlers, speculators, and traders were willing to tolerate. The treaty policy the United States adopted required some Indian wars and took longer than some U.S. citizens wished. It reflected a compromise between the rough-and-tumble frontiersmen, who preferred swift seizure of tribal lands at the risk of war, and the interests of well-placed easterners who wanted to treat the Indians more honorably and respect their property rights. Indian treaties represented such peculiar bargains that influential Americans began to question their use altogether. Georgia’s governor, speaking in 1830 at the height of the Cherokee removal controversy, declared that “treaties were expedients by which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were induced without bloodshed to yield up what civilized peoples had a right to possess by virtue of that command of the Creator delivered to man upon his formation—be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Congress expressed a similar view, stating that payment for tribal lands was “but the substitute which humanity and expediency have imposed, in place of the sword, in arriving at the actual enjoyment of property claimed by the right of discovery, and sanctioned by the natural superiority allowed to the claims of civilized communities over those of savage tribes.” By the middle of the nineteenth century, even those who viewed themselves as friends of the Indians raised doubts about the treaty system, calling it a farce. Henry Whipple, Episcopal bishop of Minnesota in the 1860s, urged the United States to deal with the tribes as wards rather than as independent nations. The real purpose of the treaties, he observed, was to pay worthless debts of the Indian

www.abc-clio.com

traders and to create jobs for political cronies, not to compensate the Indians or provide for their future well-being. Ultimately, however, federal treaty making ended because the House of Representatives became resentful of demands that it appropriate money to fulfill obligations contained in treaties it had had no part in ratifying. A particular source of irritation was a provision in the Osage treaty of 1868, replicated in some other treaties that ceded Indian lands directly to the railroads rather than to the government for addition to the public domain and resale to needy settlers. But members of the House were also unhappy with treaties of 1867 and 1868 involving tribes of the plains along with the Navajo, complaining that they supplied the tribes with too much money over too long a period of time, thereby delaying the day when tribe members would feel pressure to give up their tribal affiliations, accept non-Indian “civilization,” and become self-reliant. Attacking the treaty-making system more broadly, one representative asserted that “the idea of this Government making treaties with bands of wild and roving Indians is simply preposterous and ridiculous. It is not good judgment or statesmanship; it is child’s play, nothing more and nothing less.” Beginning in 1868, the House refused to appropriate funds to fulfill promises made in the 1867 and 1868 treaties, despite the fact that the Senate had ratified the treaties. Finally, in 1871, the impasse between the houses of Congress ended when they agreed upon legislation that would affirm the validity of past treaties but declared that “hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty.” Henceforth, agreements might be made with the tribes, but they would only become law when enacted into legislation by both houses.

Specific Treaty Objectives and Provisions from a Federal Perspective The only treaty made during the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Fort Pitt with the Delaware Nation (1778), manifests the fledgling American nation’s desire to gain support in its conflict against Great Britain. Each signer agreed to assist the other in times of war, and the Delaware specifically agreed to allow free passage to U.S. troops across its lands. The United States, in turn, agreed to build a fort so that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

the Delaware elders, women, and children could be protected while the warriors “engaged against the common enemy.” The sovereignty of the Delaware is acknowledged in a requirement that representatives from both nations, sitting together, be empowered to try individual wrongdoers, either Indian or nonIndian. So eager was the United States for a Delaware alliance that it also promised to guarantee the territorial integrity of Delaware lands and to allow friendly tribes, under the leadership of the Delaware, “to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress.” This treaty made little difference during the war, and the Indian representation in Congress never came to pass. With so many tribes having sided with Britain during the Revolutionary War, the earliest postwar Indian treaties aimed at land acquisition and the return of prisoners but also at affirming the exclusive loyalty of the tribes to the United States and maintaining peace with the tribes. Convinced that it had conquered the tribes when it defeated the British, the new federal government believed it could use the treaties to demand additional tribal lands of the Six Nations, the tribes of the Old Northwest, and the southeastern nations. Thus, treaties such as those at Fort Stanwix, Fort McIntosh, Fort Harmar, and Hopewell set boundary lines, with Indian settlement allowed on one side and outlawed on the other. These treaties also included acknowledgements by the tribes that they were “under the protection of the United States and of no other sovereign whatsoever.” To assure the dominance of the United States and to avoid sources of conflict, these treaties also reserved lands for U.S. military forts and trading posts, denied American protection to illegal settlers on Indian lands, and required that the tribes deliver up Indians who committed certain crimes against American citizens. The simultaneous goals of peace with the Indians and acquisition of their lands were difficult for the federal government to maintain, however. The tribes resented their dispossession under the treaties, and the land-hungry settlers ignored even those boundaries, establishing themselves on lands allocated to the Indians. Furthermore, in the years before the War of 1812, the British remained a persistent threat to the fledgling United States, and the possibility of an Indian-British alliance worried American political leaders. Concerned about the possible outbreak of war with the Indians, Congress announced its intention to deal with the Indians on the basis of

www.abc-clio.com

19

“good faith” and directed its Indian agents to reduce such sources of irritation to the tribes as fraudulent traders and encroaching settlers. The result was a series of treaties, exemplified by the Treaty of Holston with the Cherokee, made in 1790 and reaffirmed in 1794, and the Treaty of Canandaigua with the Iroquois, made in 1794. These treaties more clearly recognized that the Indian nations were reserving their own lands; clarified boundaries where they had been in dispute; increased the amount of compensation through annuities, goods, and otherwise to be paid to the Indians; and, in the case of the Iroquois, affirmed that the United States would not claim any Indian lands unless the Indians wished to sell them. War with the Indians erupted nonetheless in the Northwest Territory, as the Indians appeared to be unifying under the leadership of Tecumseh (Shawnee), among others. It was not until the Battle of Fallen Timbers, in 1794, when the British demonstrated their reluctance to come to the aid of the Indians, that the United States was able to achieve the larger treaty cessions of land that nonIndian settlers craved. In the Treaty of Greenville, which followed that conflict, the Indians relinquished their claims to the southern two-thirds of Ohio and a small part of what is now Indiana in exchange for compensation and continued hunting rights in the ceded lands. But because the United States remained militarily weak, with isolated forts dotting a far-reaching boundary along the Ohio, it continued to pursue diplomacy with the Indians rather than attempting to subdue them through brute force. Indeed, both the Treaty of Canandaigua and the Treaty of Greenville were concluded through ceremonies showing respect for Indian ways, returning to Indian-preferred vocabulary, such as “Great Father” for the United States. Even the boundaries created by these more substantial treaties of cession were difficult for the United States to maintain, however, given the political pressures from non-Indian settlers. So, in these early decades of the nation, leaders such as Washington’s secretary of war, Henry Knox—and, later, Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe—held out hope that the Indians could be persuaded to part with even larger tracts of land if the men would only give up hunting as a way of life and take up agriculture, which had heretofore been the province of women. As Jefferson said in 1803, “[W]hile the Indians are learning to do better on less land, our increasing numbers will be calling for more land, and thus a coincidence of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

20

Governments and Treaty Making

interests will be produced between those who have land to spare and want other necessities and those that have necessities to spare and want land.” The treaties of this time reflected that objective. Thus, for example, the Treaty of Greenville (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Kappler 1975, 39–45) specified that a tribe could ask that a part of its annuity be paid out in the form of “domestic animals, implements of husbandry, and other utensils convenient for them, and in compensation for useful artificers who may reside with or near them, and be employed for their benefit.” Indian debts to traders also figured into the treaties of the young United States. As the numbers of game and fur pelts on Indian lands diminished due to non-Indian encroachment, Indians had much less to exchange for the manufactured goods to which they had become accustomed, and found themselves in greater and greater debt to traders. As of 1803, for example, the Creeks alone owed $113,000. The only thing of value that the Indians had to offer was their land. But given the federal government’s restrictions on transfer of Indian lands to private parties, the Indians could not settle their debts by giving land directly to the creditors. So the non-Indian traders began to pressure the U.S. government to negotiate land cessions with the tribes, with the expectation that federal compensation to the tribes would quickly be diverted to satisfy the mounting obligations. Thus, debt satisfaction and land acquisition proved to be comfortable companions as U.S. treaty aims. President Jefferson even suggested that the Indians be encouraged to run up such debt at U.S. factories that they would become impelled to “lop them off” with land cessions. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, the United States pursued these aims with an emphasis on proper diplomacy; Jefferson’s secretary of war, Henry Dearborn, urged his negotiators to use “all prudent means in your power . . . to reconcile [the Indians] and to remove every obstacle to their mutual friendship.” In addition to seeking land and debt repayment, Jefferson wanted to obtain rights-ofway through Indian country for roads that would knit the growing nation together, to consolidate the newly acquired western territory of the Louisiana Purchase, and to secure the Mississippi valley against foreign invasion. The Spanish presence in Florida was a particular concern; Jefferson noted in 1808 that the United States needed a strong buffer of militia between Indians and Spanish-controlled Florida.

www.abc-clio.com

Jefferson’s negotiating team produced mixed results, with the Cherokees and the Creeks reluctantly ceding as little land as possible and the Chickasaws and the Choctaws offering more. The Treaty of Mount Dexter with the Choctaws, made in 1805, illustrates the treaty terms most sought by the United States during this period. In exchange for a large cession of lands in southern Mississippi Territory, the United States paid $50,000, $48,000 of which was to enable the tribe “to discharge the debt due to their merchants and traders. . . .” Jefferson focused heavily on the location of the ceded lands in relation to U.S. military objectives in the South. A treaty the same year with the Creeks included allowance of a horse path through Creek country as well as the sought-after land cession, but compensation paid was not specifically targeted for debt repayment. In the Northwest Territory, then governed by a young William Henry Harrison, the federal government’s objective was to prevent Indian wars by removing non-Indian settlers trespassing on Indian lands and to facilitate cessions by resolving boundary disputes among the many tribes in that area and fostering Indian assimilation. As traditional means of subsistence declined for the tribes, treaties on such terms became easier to achieve. In the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne with the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, and Eel River tribes, for example, the United States acquired more than two and a half million acres at less than two cents an acre, giving the United States control over the land in the Old Northwest. In words that ring hollow in hindsight, Harrison assured the Indians that “[t]he United States would always adhere to their engagements. To do otherwise would be offensive to the great spirit and all the world would look upon them as a faithless people.” This expressed concern about world opinion probably counted for little with federal officials, because the European powers of the day were busy conducting their own colonial campaigns. For them to condemn the United States in its treatment of the Indians would have been hypocritical and contrary to their own interests. Other treaties of this era, such as the treaty with the Osage made in 1808 and ratified in 1810, affirmed that the Indians would not sell lands to any foreign power or to citizens of the United States without approval of the federal government, and offered certificates redeemable for trade at the factory or fort, but only to Indians who remained friendly to the United States. The treaties of this

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

decade reflect the growing inequality of power between the United States and the Indian nations, the tribes acknowledging the friendship and protection of the federal government and the treaties themselves establishing terms that were less and less accommodating to the tribes. At the same time, these treaties also acted as a relatively new form of political recognition of the tribes. By attesting to the legitimacy of the Indian tribes with whom it signed formal treaties, as well as the tribes’ “Indian title” to their lands, the United States was consolidating the status of Indian nations as distinct political entities. Although the U.S. negotiators may not have intended this result of governmental recognition, the ingrained practice of dealing through treaties led the United States along that path. Although the Treaty of Fort Wayne (Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803) succeeded in shifting land from tribes to the United States, it did not produce peace with the Indians, many of whom considered its Indian signers unauthorized to make such an agreement. Siding with the British in the War of 1812, these Indians also suffered the consequences of U.S. victory. Indeed, Francis Paul Prucha, who has written definitive works on Indian treaties, describes the War of 1812 as “a watershed in the history of treaty making with the Indians.” With defeat of the British in 1812 and the Creeks in 1814, the Indians no longer posed a serious threat east of the Mississippi, and the United States assumed the dominant position in North America. Postwar treaties with Indian tribes confirmed this arrangement through terms that were less and less accommodating to the tribes. For example, the punitive 1814 treaty with the Creeks at Fort Jackson ceded immense Creek land holdings, roughly twenty million acres in Alabama and Georgia, without compensation. Under the treaty, the land was deemed “an equivalent for all expenses incurred in prosecuting the war to its termination.” The treaty also gave the United States rights to establish military and trading posts and roads within Creek territory, and all hostile Creeks who had fought against the United States were to be surrendered. Over the next fifteen years, treaties with the Indians produced larger and larger land cessions. With lands now available west of the Mississippi through the Louisiana Purchase, the United States began to seek relinquishment of all Indian lands east of the river and removal of the tribes to guaranteed lands in the West. Although this idea did not originate after the War of 1812, it was only after the war

www.abc-clio.com

21

that provisions for removal of the Indians, entailing exchange of lands east of the river for lands to the west, found their way into the treaties. One illustration of this new thrust was the treaty of 1817 with the Cherokee, in which they gave up two large tracts in Georgia and North Carolina for land of equivalent size on the Arkansas and White rivers. Eleven years later, the same group of western Cherokee signed another treaty moving them beyond the western boundary of the Arkansas Territory, with emphatic language promising them a “permanent home, . . . that shall never, in all future time, be embarrassed by having extended around it the lines, or placed over it the jurisdiction of a Territory or State. . . .” Although many Cherokees steadfastly resisted this plan, a significant number had chosen to move west. Along with the dissenting group of eastern Cherokees, many other tribes were unwilling to exchange lands and remove. So, with them, the United States settled for cession of the largest tracts possible, reserving small domains for the tribes and heavily promoting the tribes’ shift to agrarian pursuits. One interesting issue that arose with regard to these reserves was whether the reserved lands could be held by the Indians in private ownership, or fee simple. A treaty in 1817 negotiated with the Wyandot, Delaware, Shawnee, Seneca, and others at the Rapids of the Miami incorporated such a scheme. But this form of tribal landholding threatened the legally questionable but rapidly exploding private market for rights to acquire former Indian lands once the United States extinguished the Indians’ right of possession. These “rights of preemption” would be valueless if the Indians acquired full ownership through the treaty. So the treaty had to be modified before the Senate would ratify it; and this treaty, as well as future treaties with other tribes, specified that reserved lands would be held “in the same manner as Indian reservations have been heretofore held.” With little room to bargain in this immediate postwar period, the Indians focused on the form and amount of their compensation. A particular concern of the United States was to avoid perpetual annuities as much as possible, because they were inconsistent with the U.S. goal of assimilation. Like rehabilitative alimony in modern-day divorce cases, payments to Indians were to be made only for the period of time it would take, as treaty negotiator William Clark wrote, “to teach them to subsist themselves by the arts of civilized life. . . .” In the treaty of 1825 that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

22

Governments and Treaty Making

Clark negotiated with the Osages, for example, livestock, farming utensils, and technical assistance were primary elements. A treaty of 1826 with the Potawatomi, typical for its time, promised annual sums for the education of Indian youth. Toward the end of the 1820s, as positions of power and tactics changed, U.S. negotiators began to suggest that treaties were not the best way of dealing with the tribes. In the South, Andrew Jackson, who had risen to prominence in wars with the Creeks, argued that Indians have only “possessory rights to the soil, for the purpose of hunting and not the right to domain,” concluding that “[C]ongress has the full power, by law, to regulate all the concerns of the Indians.” Jackson rejected the idea that Indians were independent nations with rights of sovereignty, a position echoed in the statement of the secretary of war, Henry Calhoun, that “it is perfectly absurd to hold treaties with those within our limits, as they neither are, nor can be, independent of our government.” This critique of treaty making was to gain force over time; but the practice continued for more than another forty years, with more than sixty-seven Indian treaties ratified while Jackson himself was president. Treaties of the Jacksonian period of the 1830s pressed hard on the Indians to remove from areas in the East that were occupied or coveted by nonIndians. In the Old Northwest, a majority of the treaties provided for the reduction of the land base without removal. But several provided for permissive removal and eight for obligatory removal. Some of these treaties reserved land for chiefs or other individuals or bands that refused to migrate beyond the Mississippi. In the South, even more powerful storm clouds of removal gathered. The best-known treaties during this time involve the Cherokee, whose national sovereignty and right to refuse sale of their lands had been recognized in the Treaties of Hopewell (Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785) and Holston (Treaty with the Cherokee, 1791). When Georgia boldly extended its laws over Cherokee territory, and the federal government could not persuade the remaining Cherokees to sell their land and leave for the Indian Territory, the stage was set for a national debate on the sanctity of Indian treaties. A bill to remove the Cherokee without their consent made its way through the Congress, prompting angry protests and avid defense. Protestant minister Jeremiah Evarts was the most vocal and eloquent proponent of keeping

www.abc-clio.com

treaty promises to the Indians, arguing that the very signing of these treaties implied that Indian communities had governments of their own not subject to the laws of the United States. Not only did the Constitution require adherence to the treaties, but so did Christian morality, which made it a sin to violate one’s solemn commitments. Georgia and its supporters, including Baptist missionary Reverend Isaac McCoy and Georgia politician Wilson Lumpkin, contended in response that treaties had been a huge mistake and were nothing more than a mockery and a farce. How, Lumpkin asked, could a guardian make a government-to-government agreement with its own ward? Those sharing his view pointed to the treaty provisions acknowledging the Cherokees’ dependence on the United States, as well as the reality of changed circumstances. Although agreements are made precisely to protect against changed circumstances, that fact did not appear to give Lumpkin or the others of his ilk any pause. In the end, the Cherokee bill passed; Jackson signed it into law on May 28, 1830. Unwilling to acquiesce, the Cherokee made passionate appeals to Congress and pursued their cause through litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. In two decisions rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1832, the Court affirmed the Cherokees’ status as a “domestic dependent nation” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia) occupying and governing a territory that was not subject to Georgia state law (Worcester v. Georgia). These decisions established rules of interpretation, or canons of construction, for Indian treaties. Among those rules were requirements that treaties be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them and that ambiguities in treaty language be resolved in favor of protecting the Indians’ sovereignty and property. In effect, the Court established, as a general default position, that treaties would not defeat preexisting Indian rights, whether inherent in the tribes or recognized in earlier treaties, unless Congress was clear in expressing its intent to do so. These principles reflected basic rules of contract interpretation that favored the much weaker party in negotiations, especially when that party is forced to negotiate in a foreign language. They also may have stemmed from the Court’s awareness that Indians were not sewn into the constitutional fabric in any way that resembled consent. The Jackson administration snubbed Chief Justice Marshall’s decision and continued to foist removal treaties on the Cherokee and other south-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

ern tribes. Even as the debate over Cherokee removal swirled about the Capitol, the Choctaw capitulated to what they believed was inevitable, signing the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830). Indeed, Jackson’s negotiators had told them that, if they refused to move west, state law would be imposed on them, and their tribal existence would no longer be recognized. The treaty offered many inducements and reassurances to secure the Choctaws’ land cessions and emigration. Departing from past practice, the new lands west of the Mississippi were granted to the tribe in fee simple, “to inure to them while they shall exist as a nation and live on it.” Furthermore, the United States promised that, in exchange for removal, it would secure to the Choctaws “the jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may be within their limits” and would prevent the establishment of any state or federal territory upon their lands. Protection against unauthorized intruders as well as domestic and foreign enemies was included as well. And additional annuities and schooling for Choctaw youth were also part of the package, along with houses for the chiefs. For those who could not bring themselves to leave, individual lands would be allotted in fee within the ceded territory. The treaty with the Choctaw was followed over the next three years by similar treaties with the Chickasaw, the Creeks, and the Seminoles. But the Cherokees, most of whom had refused to leave for the West under the 1817 and 1828 treaties, tried to resist removal, staking their position on the favorable ruling they had received from the U.S. Supreme Court. At this point, the United States was able to exploit a division within the Cherokee Nation, one that pitted the Treaty Party, made up of those who wanted the best bargain possible in light of inevitable removal, against a group of adamant removal opponents. Only 350 Cherokee among the nearly 20,000 remaining in Georgia supported the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which was tailored much like the Choctaw Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, ceding eastern lands in exchange for new lands in the West to be held in fee simple. While the payment amounts differed, the only major distinction between the Cherokee and Choctaw treaties was that the Cherokee agreement did not allow individual allotments within the ceded lands. More than 15,000 Cherokees signed a petition protesting the treaty of 1835 and attesting to its illegitimacy. Nonetheless, President Jackson forcibly

www.abc-clio.com

23

and brutally carried out the removal. Although the suffering of the Cherokee was immense, it was redeemed to some extent by the treaty provisions affirming political autonomy and land rights of the Indian nations, born of the Cherokees’ victory in Worcester v. Georgia and the forceful pro-treaty rhetoric of Jeremiah Evarts and others. Even President Jackson could not abandon treaty making, though he thought it a farce. The practice was too embedded in American and Native thinking about proper ways of conducting relations. During this same period, outside the South the same pressures for removal prevailed, and U.S. treaty policy took a similar form. However, in the Old Northwest, the tribes were smaller and had been moved about on numerous occasions already, leading to some variations from the southern treaties. Thus, although groups of the Ho-Chunk and Potawatomi tribes entered into relatively standard removal treaties, some other tribes managed to stay put. The western bands of Chippewa, for example, made the treaty of 1837, signed at Fort Snelling, in which they gave up large wooded tracts in eastern Minnesota and north central Wisconsin in exchange for annuities, settlement of traders’ claims, payoffs to powerful leaders, and retention of hunting, fishing, and rice-gathering rights on the ceded lands “during the pleasure of the President of the United States.” Although President Zachary Taylor tried to effect removal in 1850, the Chippewa remained in place, and the unilateral nature of the removal order ultimately led the Supreme Court to declare it void. Removal fever also found its way into treaties with the New York tribes. A powerful land company held preemption rights to the Indian lands and wanted the Indian title extinguished. Furthermore, the City of Buffalo was eager to expand into areas then part of the Iroquois territory. Treaties in 1831 and 1832 with the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin had provided land for westward-migrating Oneidas. But the Treaty of Buffalo Creek in 1838 with the Seneca and other New York Indians succeeded in achieving land cessions without actually resettling the tribes on the territory in Kansas that was set aside for them. The Seneca and the Oneida remaining in New York stayed on in the state, albeit on tracts much smaller than before. The removal plan, premised as it was on the potential for complete separation of Indian from non-Indian populations, broke down in the 1840s and 1850s as improved transportation, acquisition of new territories in the Southwest and Northwest,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

24

Governments and Treaty Making

and increased immigration caused non-Indian settlement to catch up with the Indians’ western lands, destroying their traditional means of subsistence. Suddenly, federal treaty policy had to contend with new clashes between settlers and the tribes and had to find ways the two groups could coexist. Many of the newly encountered tribes violently resisted encroachment on their lands, and combating them stretched the capacity of the relatively young nation. Moreover, the legal apparatus that accompanied some of these new tribes, especially the fee land title of the Pueblo tribes formerly under Mexican rule, presented new challenges. Treaties continued to be the preferred mode of conducting Indian relations during these years, and dozens were ratified; but there were notable exceptions and breakdowns in the process, and the types of treaty terms began to shift. Treaties of the 1840s and 1850s focused less on removal west and more on confining the western Indians on smaller and smaller reservation tracts so that non-Indian migration and settlement would not be impeded. The alternative possibilities of curtailing emigration or protecting the Indians against trespass were politically difficult for a U.S. government accountable only to the non-Indians; and the old policy of removing the tribes to an area beyond white immigration and settlement was no longer physically possible. Confinement on small reservations was the preferred solution simply because there was no place further west to move the Indians that had not already been settled by non-Indians or occupied by other tribes. Sometimes the demands of non-Indian settlers were so great that multiple tribes had to be collected, more or less arbitrarily, onto a single reservation. Thus, for example, in the Pacific Northwest most of the treaties were made with “confederated tribes and bands” in order to limit the amount of territory set aside for the Indians. The experience in California was even more extreme. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war with Mexico in 1848, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify any treaties at all with the California Indians, because the lands that the proposed treaties had set aside for them were considered too valuable by the whites, and there was nowhere else to place the reservations. Only after several decades had passed and sympathy for the “landless” California Indians had mounted did Congress and the executive branch establish small reservations, or rancherias.

www.abc-clio.com

Elsewhere in the West, however, treaty making was actively under way during this period of the 1840s and 1850s. On the plains, for example, the destruction of buffalo herds that accompanied western settlement prompted the commissioner of Indian affairs, William Medill, to seek relocation of the Indians into “colonies” north and south of the main routes of migration. The Indians would also be compensated for the rights-of-way and for loss of the buffalo. Thus arose the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 with the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, Assiniboine, Gros Ventre, Mandan, and Arikara, in which boundaries were set among the tribes and with the United States, and the Indians pledged peace with the United States and cessation of hostilities among themselves. The tribes further agreed to allow the United States to build forts and roads within their territories and to pay restitution to nonIndians harmed while lawfully passing through the Indian lands. For its part, the United States promised generous annuities of $50,000 per year for 50 years and to protect the Indians from predation by the whites. This treaty was later superseded by others less favorable to the tribes. A few years later, in negotiations with tribes west of Missouri and Iowa, another commissioner of Indian affairs, George W. Manypenny, made a concerted policy of including treaty provisions for allotment of reserved lands. This new policy of allotment was designed to break up the tribal estate by converting tribal ownership into private ownership title held by individual tribal members. Although some federal policymakers tried to argue that private ownership would benefit the Indians, a powerful reality was that allotment served non-Indian interests in land acquisition. Once in private ownership, the lands became much more accessible to nonIndians through tax sales, adverse possession, and sharp dealing. Foreshadowing Congress’s enactment of the General Allotment Act of 1887, this treaty policy of allotment also envisioned termination of tribal existence in the near future. Another feature of Manypenny’s treaty policy was an end to permanent annuities as a form of payment for land cessions. Under his treaties, the Indians were required to relinquish all claims to funds owed under previous treaties, and newly promised payments were to be paid to the tribes on a rapid timetable. This new method of payment was consistent with the plan for near-term termination of tribal entities. Among the many treaties made on this basis were those with the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View

Otoe and Missouria tribes in 1854 and the Shawnee in the same year. A series of treaties made during this period with the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, negotiated by territorial governor Isaac Stevens, largely adhered to the framework of the Manypenny treaties. Nonetheless, they had to take into account the tribes’ resistance to moving from their ancestral lands and giving up their traditional fishing practices. So Governor Stevens strategically located the reservations so as to avoid non-Indian settlements while protecting the tribes’ means of subsistence. Furthermore, he included provisions reserving to the tribes, on their ceded lands, “[t]he right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens of the Territory. . . .” In a series of later cases, the federal courts eventually ruled that this provision guaranteed one-half the catch from these areas to the tribes, decisions that provoked angry outcries from non-Indian commercial and sport fishers. Notwithstanding the recognition of traditional fishing practices in the Stevens treaties, most treaties of the 1840s and 1850s, and even more so those of the 1860s, focused on transforming Indians into agriculturalists. Some treaties, such as those with the Mescalero and Jicarilla Apache in 1853, actually included agreements by the Indians to settle on the lands allotted to them and to “cultivate the soil and raise flocks and herds for a subsistence.” However, this plan was not always backed up by establishment of reservations with soil and water adequate for successful farming. Non-Indian settlers were reluctant to see rich agricultural lands in Indian ownership and pressed the United States to exclude them from the reservations. Indian treaty making slowed somewhat during the Civil War. Yet during this time, a powerful debate over the desirability and utility of Indian treaties emerged within the federal government, reaching a crescendo in 1864. Military leaders such as General John Pope wanted to employ the overwhelming force of the United States to end the treaty system, stop the flow of annuity payments under earlier treaties, and manage the Indians regardless of their consent. The commissioner of Indian affairs, William Dole, strongly resisted this approach, arguing instead that the United States should continue its long-standing policy of using force only to the point where the Indians could be induced to agree to treaty terms. Otherwise, the Indians would more

www.abc-clio.com

25

strongly resist any “civilizing” efforts by the United States. Dole’s position won out, but only for the next five years. Skirmishes with the Indians along the emigrant trails and fears for the security of the newly constructed transcontinental railway led the United States to sponsor the Peace Commission in 1867, giving over treaty-negotiating authority to a specially qualified group of civilian and military leaders. Its charge was to minimize the causes for war among the Indians while securing the routes west and moving the Indians toward greater assimilation. Typical of the treaties that emerged from that process were those with the Sioux and the Navajo, both made in 1868. These treaties attempted to allay the Indians’ concerns about loss of land and sovereignty by securing tracts to them for their “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation” and positing that no cessions of land shall be valid “unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the same.” The United States also agreed to arrest and punish “bad men among the whites” who committed wrongs on the Indians and to compensate those Indians who were thus injured. At the same time, the Indians agreed to turn over to the United States, for punishment, any “bad men among the Indians” who committed wrongs against outsiders. Most of the provisions in these treaties, however, were devoted to pressing the Indians toward lives as farmers and ranchers. The United States obligated itself to build schools, to provide agents and teachers who would live on the reservation, and to allocate tracts for farming, seed, and agricultural implements to any tribal member so inclined. The Indians, in turn, agreed to compel their children up to the age of sixteen to attend school. For the Navajos in particular, a major inducement for signing the treaty was the opportunity to return from exile to their ancestral homeland in the Southwest.

The End of Treaty Making Although non-Indian opposition to Indian treaties had surfaced during the Jackson administration, fueled by the views of Jackson himself, antagonism toward such instruments became more pointed and widespread at the end of the 1860s. The reasons were manifold. Some pointed to the inability of the U.S. military, stretched thin across the growing nation, to make good on American promises to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

26

Governments and Treaty Making

protect boundary lines established in the treaties. As Episcopal bishop Henry Whipple wrote, “We send ambassadors to make a treaty as with our equals, knowing that every provision of that treaty will be our own, [and] that those with whom we make it cannot compel us to observe it. . . .” Many spokesmen of the time contended that it was a farce to treat with Indians as if they were separate and sovereign nations when they had no effective governments and laws of their own. Although such statements ignored the traditions of dispute resolution and social control that remained alive within tribal communities, they also reflected the deterioration of many such institutions under the impact of non-Indian settlement and Indian administration. Ultimately, in 1871, the Congress abolished future treaty making with the Indians. Among other things, the House of Representatives had become frustrated over the fact that it was required to appropriate funds to fulfill treaty obligations but did not have a voice in the decision to ratify those treaties. Although the United States continued to make agreements with the Indian nations and to enshrine those agreements in legislation, the era of treaty making had come to an end because treaties no longer served federal policy objectives. The United States had already acquired vast quantities of Indian land and didn’t need treaties to finish the job. Carole Goldberg

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

References and Further Reading Andrew, John A., III. 1992. From Revivals to Removal: Jeremiah Evarts, the Cherokee Nation, and the Search for the Soul of America. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, Dorothy. 1982. License for Empire: Colonialism by Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kades, Eric. 2000. “The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands,” 148 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1065–1190. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1975. Indian Treaties 1778–1883, 3rd ed. New York: Interland. Newton, Nell Jessup, ed. 2005. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Richter, Daniel K. 2001. Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Satz, Ronald. 1975. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Trennert, Robert A., Jr. 1975. Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy and the Beginnings of the Reservation System—1846–51. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

L

egislation affecting the indigenous tribes and peoples in the United States included laws that stated general policy directions, laws that established and regulated the burgeoning Indian Service, laws that authorized appropriations, and laws that appropriated funds to carry out Congress’s intent. All these laws were significant for the dealings of the United States with Indian tribes and peoples. During the treaty period, the laws provided a framework for the U.S. representatives who met with the Indian tribes to negotiate treaties. Legislation delineated Indian policy, provided the framework for Indian treaties, and appropriated funds to carry out federal policy. Indian legislation expressed Congress’s sense of the nature of contemporary American society, and the progression of Indian legislation reflected the progression of American social organization more broadly considered. After Congress ended treaty making with the Indian tribes in 1871, legislation provided the framework for the negotiation of the agreements that substituted for treaties in the late nineteenth century. These treaty substitutes were subsequently ratified as statutes rather than as treaties; both houses of Congress voted on the agreements, not only the Senate as is the case for treaties. During the twentieth century, intergovernmental agreements between the tribes and the United States and individual states again became an important way of regulating the relations between the United States and the Indian tribes. In the United States, Indian legislation has included congressional statements of general Indian policy, laws creating and regulating the Indian Service, laws and treaties dealing with specific tribes or groups of tribes, and appropriations acts that provided the funds to carry out Indian policy. Most studies of federal Indian policy have concerned statements of general Indian policy, legislation directed at specific groups of Indians, and the implementation of these statutes. The laws creating and regulating the agencies responsible for carrying out Indian affairs, and appropriation acts, although less studied, have been important in determining the course of Indian affairs. General Indian legislation at times shaped events in the field and at times responded to them.

L

But general Indian legislation was even more profoundly influenced by the general trend of federal legislation. This is because an objective of Congress in framing Indian legislation has been to influence the direction of development of Indian communities. The desired direction has been influenced by developments in American society and by prevailing assumptions about the likely directions for development. Indian legislation followed trends in the society, including general laws enacted by Congress to apply to all citizens. In America, Harold Hyman has suggested that five laws contributed to a singularly American development of public policy: the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, enacted by the Continental Congress before the ratification of the Constitution; the Homestead and Land Grant College Acts of 1862, enacted by the first Civil War Congress; and the GI Bill of 1944, enacted in anticipation of the end of World War II (Hyman 1986). Each of these laws was important in shaping Indian policy, although none was specifically directed toward Native American people.

Trade and Intercourse Prior to American independence, colonial legislatures and royal provincial governors dealt with tribes within the confines of their territories. After the French and Indian War, the Crown preempted management of relations with the tribes of the Ohio valley. Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1778 during the American Revolution, gave the Continental Congress the power to deal with Indian tribes located in the West on a government-to-government basis; the states were in charge of relations with local tribes. The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided for a rectangular survey of the area west of the Appalachian Mountains, with one 640-acre section in each township to be devoted to support of the public schools. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 specified the methods of sale and settlement of the surveyed lands. By providing for the organization of new states in the territory north and west of the Ohio River, the ordinance contemplated the organization of the western territories on the model of

27 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

28

Governments and Treaty Making

the eastern states. The ordinance promoted and accelerated the westward expansion of the United States. The source of federal authority in Indian affairs is the Constitution, which gives the Congress plenary power in Indian affairs. The commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) provides that “Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The supremacy clause (Article VI) provides that the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” Initially, as implied in the commerce clause, the emphasis of congressional legislation was on regulating trade with the Indian tribes. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, enacted between 1790 and 1834, provided for the disposal of Indian lands and the regulation of Indian trade. The Indian Intercourse Acts went beyond the regulation of trade, however. Congress attempted to regulate the legal relations between Indians and whites and, most significantly, to promote the “civilization” or acculturation of the Indians by providing material assistance and instruction in agriculture. Perhaps necessary in an era when the United States contended with such European powers as Great Britain, Spain, and France for domination of the North American continent, the Indian Intercourse Acts were designed to insure adherence to United States hegemony in North America on the part of the Indian tribes. The conclusion of the War of 1812 served to secure the northern frontier of the United States. Although the war did not result in American expansion to the north as some Americans had hoped it would, competition with European powers for domination of the North American continent diminished. The Indian Civilization Fund Act of 1819 (3 Stat. 516) portended future developments in Indian affairs. The act, which remained in force until 1873, authorized annual appropriations to the Civilization Fund, from which “benevolent societies,” for the most part Protestant missions to the Indians, received funds to acculturate Native Americans by instructing Indian adults in the European American style of agriculture and Indian children in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Many of the treaties negotiated by the United States with the Indian tribes during this period included provi-

www.abc-clio.com

sions for education and training in agriculture along with regulation of trade and commercial relations with whites.

Removal In 1800, the United States comprised sixteen states: Vermont (admitted in 1791), Kentucky (admitted in 1792), and Tennessee (admitted in 1796), in addition to the original thirteen colonies. By 1830, an additional seven states had joined the union, including Louisiana (admitted in 1804) and Missouri (admitted in 1821), the first states to be organized with territory west of the Mississippi River. In addition, by 1830 territorial governments had been organized for Michigan (in 1805), Arkansas (in 1819), and Florida (in 1822). The population of the United States, enumerated at 5.3 million at the 1800 census, had grown to 12.8 million by 1830. Growing population and the organization of territorial and state governments in the West and South put pressure on Indian people living east of the Mississippi River. Removal, the forced or voluntary relocation of Indians from tribal lands occupied at contact to new lands in the West, began before Congress enacted the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (4 Stat. 411). Sometimes removal was voluntary, as tribes moved west to avoid European Americans or in search of increased opportunity. But often removal was coerced, as whites harassed Indians and as many favored removal because they believed that the isolation of Indians from whites would promote acculturation to European American culture, or “civilization.” The Indian Removal Act envisioned the exchange of Indian lands east of the Mississippi River for new lands to the west. Eastern Indians were to be resettled at the western frontier of white settlement. The act resulted in the negotiation of removal treaties with most of the eastern tribes and forced and voluntary relocations to “Indian country” west of the Mississippi River during the 1830s and 1840s. Some foresaw the development of a “permanent Indian frontier” to the west of Missouri and Arkansas. However, the migration of U.S. citizens to northern Mexico, followed by the establishment of the Texas Republic (1836) and the Mexican War (1846–1848), together with the resolution of the “Oregon Question” (1846), stimulated westward expansion by white Americans and limited the extent of Indian country to present-day

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

Oklahoma and the Dakotas. Only isolated reservations remained in Kansas and Nebraska as a result of a second round of removals in the 1850s.

Concentration During the 1840s, the United States acquired a vast inland empire. The acquisition of territory in the Northwest following settlement of the Oregon Question (1846) and in the Southwest following the annexation of Texas (1845), as well as the American victory in the Mexican War (1848), provided the United States, at the beginning of the 1850s, with an expanded western empire. A large number of Indians, who were increasingly likely to conflict with whites, lived in the newly acquired territories. But Congress contemplated a civilian administration of Indian affairs as part of its regulation of the new interior regions of the continent. When Congress created a “Home Department,” the Department of the Interior, in 1849, it transferred Indian affairs to the new department, along with the General Land Office, the Patent Office, and the Pension Office (“An Act to Establish the Home Department,” 9 Stat. 395). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ended the war with Mexico. Mexico ceded a significant amount of land to the United States, amounting to the northern third of the nation. Article IX of the treaty provided that citizens of Mexico residing in the ceded territory would become citizens of the United States. This provision affected the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, who had been recognized as citizens of Mexico. The treaty provided the United States with a vast inland empire and stimulated the continued development of the West. Prior to the Civil War, the objectives of removal of Indians from the path of white settlement and concentration of the tribes in isolated areas guided U.S. Indian policy. In the 1850s, the concentration of Indians on reservations (limited geographic territories reserved for Indian tribes) replaced the old objective of simple removal. On the reservations, Indians would be protected from whites and helped by Indian agents to adapt to white civilization. Thus, for example, the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 (11 Stat. 749) provided for a reservation for the western Sioux, and the treaty of 1854 with the Chippewa (10 Stat. 1109) reserved lands in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota for the Ojibwe. These and other treaties freed land for settlement by white Americans even as politicians of the new Republican Party pressed

www.abc-clio.com

29

for more liberal land measures to facilitate westward expansion by whites. The early reservation system depended upon the army to enforce compliance with the new boundaries and prevent armed conflict between tribes and between Indians and whites. It also required an efficient administration of the Indian Office, which had the responsibility of administering the reservations and, increasingly, of providing food rations to substitute for hunting grounds given up by the tribes. The Indian Office’s responsibilities increased as a result of the many treaties negotiated during the 1850s. However, little improvement in Indian Office administration followed the decade’s rash of treaty making. The coming of the Civil War exacerbated administrative problems. Although the pace of white westward movement hardly slowed, the army withdrew troops from frontier areas to fight the Confederacy, and Congress and the president devoted primary attention to the war rather than to Indian administration. Four laws enacted in 1862 by the first Civil War Congress set the stage for the development of the West and influenced subsequent federal Indian legislation. The Homestead Law of 1862 (12 Stat. 392) provided for the distribution of the public lands, in quarter-section parcels of 160 acres each upon payment of a nominal fee, to settlers who would agree to improve the land and live on it for five years. The size of the homesteads, larger than the minimum required for subsistence farming, signaled Congress’s intention that the West would be settled by entrepreneurial farmers, who would raise cash crops. The Morrill or Land Grant College Act (12 Stat. 503) provided for education in the “agricultural and mechanic arts” to the children of homesteaders. The Pacific Railroad Act (12 Stat. 489) would provide a means to transport goods to market, whereas the Department of Agriculture Act (12 Stat. 387) provided for the development of a research agency that was to investigate the best methods of agricultural production. When the Pacific Railroad was completed in 1869, thereby increasing traffic between the East and the West, pressure on Indian lands intensified. After the Union victory in the Civil War (1865), the United States established a new federal agency, the Freedmen’s Bureau, to provide limited support to African American former slaves who had been freed as a result of the war (“An Act to Establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedom and Refugees,”

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

30

Governments and Treaty Making

1865, 13 Stat. 507). These efforts were supported by missionary associations, including several that were also involved in missions to the Indians supported by the Civilization Fund. In the Indian Territory, tribes that had supported the Confederacy were forced to sign Reconstruction treaties. The treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes (1866) freed the slaves held by those tribes, granted freedmen tribal membership, and subjugated the tribes to authority of the federal government. The Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866 (14 Stat. 799), for example, in Article IX declared that Cherokee freedmen and “all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion . . . shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.” The end of the Civil War increased the pace of Indian removals from the states of Kansas and Nebraska and from the western Great Plains. In the decade and a half following the end of the Civil War, the Indian Office removed a large number of tribes to Indian Territory, including such plains tribes as the Kiowa, the Comanche, the Cheyenne, and the Arapahoe, and tribes formerly settled on reservations in Kansas and Nebraska, including the Sac and the Fox, the Potawatomi, the Wichita, the Osage, the Pawnee, the Iowa, and the Otoe. Postwar treaties with noncombatant tribes reflected renewed federal power. The Navajo treaty of 1868 (15 Stat. 667) permitted the Navajo, who had been removed from their homeland to eastern New Mexico in 1864, to return to familiar territory to the west but within defined reservation boundaries. The treaty also provided for the distribution of land to individuals “wishing to commence farming” (Article V), compulsory education for Navajo children (Article VI), and the construction of railroads across the new reservation (Article IX). In 1865, Congress created a joint special committee “to conduct an inquiry into the condition of the Indian tribes and their treatment by the civil and military authorities” (13 Stat. 572). The Doolittle Committee, so named after its chairman, Senator J. R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, was a congressional response to the Indian wars and the political turmoil resulting from them. The committee found that the Indians were decreasing in population due to disease, wars, and loss of hunting grounds; it recommended against the transfer of the Indian Office to the War Department, a solution to the agency’s administrative problems favored by some. Instead, the committee advocated the creation of boards of

www.abc-clio.com

inspection to oversee civilian administration. Later in 1867, reporting to the Senate on “Indian hostilities on the frontier,” Commissioner of Indian Affairs Nathaniel Taylor recommended an intensified program of tribal consolidation on reservations. Warlike tribes would be confined on large reservations from which all whites except government employees would be excluded, and an intensive acculturation program would be attempted. Congress created the Indian Peace Commission, headed by Taylor, in 1867 (16 Stat. 319). The commission negotiated with many of the western tribes treaties that embodied the consolidation doctrine. A clear line should be drawn between civil and military responsibilities, the commission recommended. Opposed to transferring Indian affairs from the Interior Department to the War Department, the commission recommended a revision of the laws regulating intercourse with the Indians and administrative reforms to ensure “competent and faithful” personnel. The recommendations of the Indian Peace Commission, together with the ongoing processes of removal and concentration, provided the Grant administration, which took office in 1869, with its Indian reform policy. Hailed by contemporaries as a new departure in Indian affairs, the Peace Policy, as the Grant reforms were known, attempted to improve administration rather than to reformulate the goals of federal activity. Two major elements of the Grant administration’s program, church nomination of Indian Service officials and the creation of the Board of Indian Commissioners, were administrative changes. The third element was expressed as “Peace on the reservations, war off.” Indians remaining on the reservations were to be subject to a purely civil administration; those leaving without permission were assumed to be at war with the United States and were to be subject to military discipline. Congress created the Board of Indian Commissioners (BIC) in 1869 (16 Stat. 40). Similar to the boards of inspection called for by the Doolittle Commission, the BIC was no doubt modeled on the state boards of charities created by a number of states, beginning with Massachusetts in 1863. Like the state boards of charities, the BIC was an unpaid advisory body that visited Indian reservations, compiled statistics, and made recommendations on Indian administration. BIC members wanted to abolish reservations, the Indian Service, and tribalism. The Dawes Act of 1887 and subsequent Indian legislation to World War I reflected this point of view.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

In a provision of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 (16 Stat. 566), Congress ended the treaty relationship with the tribes. Although the precipitating cause was the unwillingness of the House to be left out of the process of treaty making, terminating the treaty relationship was consistent with the spirit of the reservation policy, in which the domination of the United States was emphasized. The ending of the treaty relationship symbolized the federal government’s objective of breaking up the tribal relationship and individualizing the Indians. Eli Parker, Grant’s first commissioner of Indian affairs, had earlier requested an end to the “fiction” of treating the tribes as independent nations in his annual report for 1869. As was true for all nineteenth-century social policy in the United States, work was favored over idleness. Congress viewed Indian labor as an essential part of the process of Indian “civilization.” In 1875, in Section 3 of the Indian Appropriations Act, Congress attempted to make Indian labor a requirement for the receipt of rations. The act provided that [f]or the purpose of inducing Indians to labor and become self-supporting . . . the [Indian] agent shall require all able-bodied male Indians to perform service upon the reservation and the allowances provided for such Indians shall be distributed to them only upon condition of the performance of such labor. (18 Stat. 420) Criminal jurisdiction remained an area of tribal autonomy. In Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), the Supreme Court found that Indian tribes retained criminal jurisdiction over their members. In response, in a section of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1885 known as the Major Crimes Act (23 Stat. 385), Congress placed Indians accused of committing the crimes of “murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny” under the jurisdiction of the United States, thus overriding tribal or other Indian authority.

Assimilation and Allotment By the early 1880s, the concentration policy had to be abandoned as unworkable. There were fewer truly isolated regions to which Indians could be removed. Further, the results of removals, particularly of Northern Plains tribes to the Indian Territory, were unacceptable. Unaccustomed to the climate, Indians died at an increasing rate on the new reservations.

www.abc-clio.com

31

When tribes such as the Ponca resisted removal, they found an increasingly sympathetic audience in white reform groups. After the abandonment of removal as a policy, diminutions in the Indian land base resulted from such factors as the discovery of mineral resources on reservations and from the early experiments in allotment, in which surplus land remaining after each Indian had received an allotment of land was opened to settlement by whites. The discovery of gold in the Black Hills of Dakota Territory resulted in the Sioux Agreement of 1876, which removed the hills from the Great Sioux Reservation, opening them to white settlement and exploitation. Similarly, the discovery of gold and silver on the Ute Reservation in 1879, combined with an uprising against their agent, resulted in the removal of the Ute from their Colorado home. Although some reformers protested the Ute removals, they ultimately acquiesced. Albert B. Meacham, a prominent Indian reformer, served on the Ute Commission, which supervised the removal. White reformers supported land reduction schemes in part because they wanted Indians to adopt land use patterns similar to those of European Americans. In addition, white pressures on Indian lands were so great that reformers believed that the Indians “would have to give up most of their land to retain title to any” (Hagan 1976, 165). If a tribe held good farmland, white pressures for removal led reformers to advocate allotment even where mineral resources were not discovered. They viewed allotment as doubly beneficial. The experience of property ownership would encourage civilization and acquisition by the Indians of the habits of hard work, thrift, and acquisitiveness, which were presumed to characterize the white population at its best. In addition, by providing protections for the Indian title, commonly a prohibition against alienation for a twenty-five-year period, allotment would forestall efforts at removal and enable the Indians to retain at least a portion of their homeland. On the reservations of central and western Indian Territory, which were better suited to cattle grazing than to cultivation, a different pattern of white intrusion developed. The contractors who supplied the agencies with beef allowed the issue herds to graze on Indian lands. Texas cattlemen who began driving their herds north to Dodge City, Kansas, in the 1870s similarly exploited reservation grasslands. In the late 1870s, agents at the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

32

Governments and Treaty Making

Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Kiowa-Comanche Reservations began to charge ranchers grazing fees, using the proceeds to supplement meager congressional appropriations for supplying the Indians with rations. Although the grazing fees were of doubtful legality, sporadic attempts by Washington officials to regulate their collection were ineffective until Congress legalized leasing allotments held by old or disabled Indians in 1891 (26 Stat. 794). Allotment, the division of Indian lands held by a tribe in common into individually owned tracts, had a long history. The allotment of Indian lands was practiced as early as the seventeenth century in the American colonies. Before the Civil War, reservations in Alabama and Mississippi were allotted as a means of facilitating the sale of Indian lands to whites. After the war, the allotment of Indian reservations was employed as an expedient to prevent the removal of tribes to more remote areas, by demonstrating the willingness of tribal members to become civilized. Thus, the Santee Sioux of Nebraska, threatened with the loss of their reservation on the Niobrara River and removal to Indian Territory, petitioned the commissioner of Indian affairs in 1869 to allot their reservation so that they might hold secure tenure on it. Similarly, when the Omaha tribe of Nebraska was threatened with removal to Indian Territory in 1882, Alice C. Fletcher, the pioneer American ethnologist, proposed allotment as an alternative. Miss Fletcher was visiting the Omaha. She went to Washington to argue against the tribe’s removal, carrying a petition requesting allotment. Successful in her mission, Miss Fletcher returned to supervise the allotment of the reservation. After the passage of the General Allotment Act of 1887, she was to supervise the allotment of several other plains reservations. The frequency of special allotment acts applied to specific tribes both before and after the passage of the General Allotment Act led historian William T. Hagan to suggest that the course of policy development was little affected by the act. In his view, reservations would have been allotted with or without a general allotment law. Most of the treaties negotiated in the 1860s included provisions for eventual allotment; similarly, Congress in 1875 provided that Indians severing their relations to their tribes could homestead on public lands under the provisions of the Homestead Law (18 Stat. 402). The possession of private property, especially the separate farm, came to be viewed as the key to Indian civilization and to the maintenance of an Indian land base.

www.abc-clio.com

The General Allotment Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 388), also known as the Dawes Act after its sponsor, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, provided for the division of reservation lands, at the discretion of the president, into allotments, which became the property of individual Indians. Each allotment was a quarter section (160 acres) in area. Upon allotment, the Indian became a citizen. The title to the allotment was held in trust by the United States for twenty-five years. At the end of this period, the allottee received a fee simple patent to his allotment. Henceforth, he or she would enjoy full control of the allotted land, which became subject to property taxes. “Surplus” lands, those remaining after all Indians on a reservation had received their allotments, were to be sold by the United States in units not to exceed 160 acres. The objective of the act was the integration of the Indians into American society as independent farmers. Not coincidentally, through the surplus land sales and through an 1891 amendment (26 Stat. 794) permitting the leasing by non-Indians of allotments held by elderly and disabled Indians, the allotment policy facilitated the penetration of the remaining Indian lands by white ranchers and farmers. In general, the act, like the Homestead Act of 1862 that it resembled, reflected a land ideology that favored small landholdings and opposed in principle the ownership of units of land too large to be worked by an individual entrepreneur. The Dawes Act made special provisions for railroad rights-of-way across reservations and for modifications in areas suitable only for grazing. The act probably accelerated the process of allotment, even though in many cases Congress enacted special legislation based on agreements with the affected tribes. For example, the Great Sioux Agreement of 1889 (25 Stat. 888), which created the Sioux Reservations of North and South Dakota, provided for their allotments. The Five Civilized Tribes of Indian Territory had been exempt from the provisions of the General Allotment Act. In 1893, however, Congress created a commission to negotiate the dissolution of the tribal governments and the allotment of tribal lands in “the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Muscogee (or Creek) Nation, [and] the Seminole Nation” (27 Stat. 557). The retired Senator Henry Dawes, the author of the General Allotment Act, served as the commission’s first chairperson. The commission supervised the enrollment of members of the five tribes and attempted to negotiate allotment. When the tribes resisted, Congress enacted the Curtis Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 498). The Curtis Act

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

authorized the allotment of tribal lands, dissolved the tribal governments, and paved the way for the eventual admission of Oklahoma as a state. The Dawes Act made no provision for the leasing of allotments. When Congress approved the leasing of allotments made to old people and the disabled in 1891 (26 Stat. 791), it also modified the size of allotments, providing for the allotment of oneeighth of a section (eighty acres) to each eligible individual and for double allotments of lands suited only for grazing. A series of additional congressional actions in the 1890s extended the scope of leasing. In 1894, Congress authorized the leasing of unsold surplus lands for farming as well as for grazing purposes (28 Stat. 305). Sections 13 and 23 of the Curtis Act of 1898 authorized the leasing of Indian Territory allotments and provided for mineral leases as well (30 Stat. 495). Congress broadened the criteria for permitting the leasing of allotments again in 1900, providing “inability,” in addition to age and disability, as a ground for leasing (31 Stat. 229). The leasing provisions, combined with the surplus land provisions of the Dawes Act, permitted extensive white intrusion into what had been reservation lands. The Burke Act of 1906 modified the citizenship provisions of the Dawes Act by deferring citizenship until expiration of the trust period (34 Stat. 182). However, the secretary of the interior could authorize the issuance of a fee simple patent to allottees he found to be competent before the end of the twentyfive-year trust period. For allottees found incompetent at the end of the twenty-five-year trust period, the trust period could be extended upon the order of the secretary. The immediate effect of the Burke Act, however, was probably to hasten the end of the trust period for many allottees. Competency commissions, particularly active during the Woodrow Wilson administration (1913–1921), were active in ending the trust period ahead of schedule.

A Transitional Period The Buy Indian Act, Section 23 of the Act of June 23, 1910 (36 Stat. 861), provided that the Indian Service should buy Indian products and contract with Indian laborers in preference to non-Indian sources. This Progressive Era legislation was intended to promote the integration of American Indians into the economy of the United States and would become important a half century later as Indian tribes attempted to promote economic development. Congress amended the act during the 1980s

www.abc-clio.com

33

and 1990s to promote federal government use of Indian energy sources and to allow Indian firms to participate in the Department of Defense’s MentorProtégé Program (P. L. 100–581, 1988, 102 Stat. 2940; P. L. 103–345, 1994, 108 Stat. 4572). The Snyder Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 208) provided explicit authorization for federal expenditures “for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States,” including education, health care, industrial development, the maintenance of water sources, and general expenses of government. The act represented a change in government policy because it departed from reliance on treaty provisions for the support of American Indians and represented the first recognition of a general federal obligation to Indian people. Another post–World War I statute, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253) made all Indians born in U.S. territory citizens of the United States. Citizenship as a status had long represented the goal of assimilationist white Indian reformers. The Indian Citizenship Act represented the high point of assimilation, as it envisioned the integration of Indian people into American society as individuals. Later Indian legislation would move away from the assimilationist goal and strengthen tribes. Forty years of experience with the Dawes Act led to the recognition that it had failed to deal adequately with the “Indian problem.” By the late 1920s, American Indians had not taken their places alongside white American farmers as independent entrepreneurs. Rather, the allotment policy had led to an even more drastic diminution in the Indian land base than had been envisioned by its framers. Unable to secure credit and inexperienced in farming, holding allotments in many cases too small to be economically viable, allottees sold or leased their holdings or lost their lands through nonpayment of state and local taxes. Allotments that remained in trust status became fragmented as the original allottees died and interest in allotments was divided among an increasing number of heirs. In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge’s secretary of the interior, Hubert Work, asked the Institute for Government Research (soon to become the Brookings Institution) to conduct a survey of Indian affairs with recommendations for administrative action. The report of the institute, known as the Meriam Report (after Lewis Meriam, the technical director of the survey), was published in 1928. Together with Laurence F. Schmeckebier’s The Office of Indian Affairs, published in 1927 as Number 48 of the institute’s Service

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

34

Governments and Treaty Making

Monographs of the United States Government, the Meriam Report was the most comprehensive survey to date of the Indian programs of the federal government. The report blamed the unanticipated consequences of the allotment policy on the government’s insistence on allotting land to tribes that were unprepared for the individual ownership of property. It recommended that the wishes of the Indians involved be taken into account prior to allotment. The report concluded that the goal of work with the Indians should be integration into white society if they desired it. But if they did not, the goal should be to enable the Indians “to live in the presence of [the prevailing] civilization at least in accordance with a minimum standard of health and decency.”

The Indian New Deal Early New Deal legislation, a response to the stresses of the Great Depression, provided for the corporate organization of the U.S. economy. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 195) created the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and provided for the organization and regulation of the economy by industry councils representing owners, workers, and the government. Until the Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional in 1935, the NRA represented the Roosevelt administration’s major effort to promote economic recovery. Two days after the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA; 48 Stat. 984). The Wheeler-Howard Act, as the IRA was known, stopped further allotments of tribal land and enabled tribes to organize themselves as governments and as corporations for purposes of economic development. The act had been drafted in the Department of the Interior by John Collier, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s commissioner of Indian affairs, and his associates. Collier wanted to restore and preserve Indian communal life and Indian culture while improving the economic status of the Indians. He saw the act as a means of doing so. Corporate development would provide an economic basis for Indian life, while tribal governments would provide the basis for a separate political order. As tribal governments and corporations became viable, the Indian Office’s role would become consultative and advisory. Other provisions of the act enabled the secretary of the interior to restore unsold surplus lands to the tribes, to extend the trust period of allotments indefinitely,

www.abc-clio.com

and to provide for the purchase of lands to be added to the reservations. A credit fund enabled the tribes to get capital to finance economic development projects. Thus, tribes were to be organized as business corporations, even as the national economy was to be organized industry by industry.

The Termination Movement The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, of 1944 (58 Stat. 284), provided educational benefits for a generation of World War II veterans. The law revolutionized higher education in the United States. The GI Bill also provided health care for veterans and gave them access to credit for homeownership and business development. The law established the basis for a postwar middle class and an increasingly suburban society. In Indian affairs, Congress followed a similar course, emphasizing investment in individuals and their economic and social development. During World War II, Congress reduced funding for the Indian Service’s community-based activities and increased funding for health and education services directed toward individual Indians. The Indian Service promoted Indian migration to urban areas to work in defense plants. In 1946, in order to “streamline” administration, Congress authorized substantial delegation of authority from the secretary of the interior to the commissioner of Indian affairs and from the commissioner to subordinate officials in the field (60 Stat. 939). In 1947, an administrative reorganization resulted in the creation of five regional headquarters, or area offices, in Minneapolis, Billings, Portland, Phoenix, and Oklahoma City. Also in 1946, Congress created the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICC; 60 Stat. 1049). The ICC was established to hear claims against the United States arising from treaty disputes, thereby streamlining the claims process. The Indian Office was officially designated the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1947. Following the conclusion of World War II, a movement for the termination of federal responsibility to the Indians and for the transfer to the states of the federal government’s health, education, welfare, and law enforcement functions dominated Indian affairs. The movement was supported by the Hoover Commission on the reorganization of the federal government in 1949, based on its rejection of the Collier position of separate development of the tribes. The Hoover Commission called for the integration of the Indians into American life, transfer of the bureau

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

to the proposed successor to the Federal Security Agency, and the transfer, as rapidly as possible, of federal services to state auspices. In 1953, Congress endorsed the Hoover Commission’s program of federal disengagement and Indian integration. The Termination Resolution, as House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 (67 Stat. B132) was known, called for the termination of federal responsibility for American Indians as quickly as possible. Congress terminated federal responsibility for a number of tribes during the 1950s, notably the Klamath tribe of Oregon (P. L. 83–587, 1954, 68 Stat. 718), the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin (P. L. 83–399, 1954, 68 Stat. 250), and the Paiute tribe of Utah (P. L. 83–762, 1954, 68 Stat. 1099). Other legislation provided for the removal of restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages to Indians (P. L. 83–277, 1954, 67 Stat. 586), for the transfer of responsibility for Indian health from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the U.S. Public Health Service, and for a relocation program to encourage Indian migration to urban areas. Public Law 280 (67 Stat. 588), also passed in 1953, enabled the states to extend law enforcement jurisdiction to Indian reservations without consulting the tribes involved. All of these measures attempted to solve the “Indian problem” by promoting the integration of the Indian into American society through the removal of special services and special protections. The National Congress of American Indians, an organization of tribal governments established under the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act, and some white-led reform groups opposed the termination movement of the 1950s. The Hoover Commission had recommended transferring services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to agencies that provided similar services to the general population. The Transfer Act of 1954 (P. L. 568, 68 Stat. 674) transferred Indian health services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Public Health Service in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Legislators intended this and related acts to be a prelude to the termination of special status and services for Indians, but the results were quite different. The Public Health Service moved to improve the health status of Indian people and during the 1960s competed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide an increasing array of services to Indian reservations.

Self-Determination Although the termination movement moved the federal government away from the principles of the

www.abc-clio.com

35

Indian New Deal after World War II, the basic legislation was not repealed, and the tribal governments continued to function. The new Democratic administration of 1961 brought an end to the termination movement. Stewart Udall, secretary of the interior under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, disavowed the policy in 1961. Presidents Johnson and Nixon both explicitly rejected termination in special Indian messages to Congress in 1968 and 1970. Ultimately, federal responsibility for the American Indians would be reduced through the economic development of the tribes. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P. L. 88–452, 78 Stat. 508) strengthened the tribal governments established under the Indian Reorganization Act, as they designated themselves Community Action Agency (CAA) Boards. Consequently, the War on Poverty increased the power of the existing tribal governments on the reservations rather than creating new power centers, as it often did in urban areas. Tribal governments began to administer a wide variety of welfare and economic development programs. During the late 1960s, a number of Great Society programs established “Indian desks.” Tribal governments became increasingly sophisticated in shopping for federal agencies willing to finance pet projects. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs, similar in size and format to the catalogs of the large mail-order houses, was a fixture in every tribal office library. Still, the federal programs of the 1960s failed to improve the relative position of the American Indians. By the end of the decade, they were still the nation’s most deprived minority group, whether the measure was nutritional level, educational accomplishment, median income, or morbidity and mortality rates. In part, the effects of the Economic Opportunity Act on the tribes were deceptive. The act provided the illusion of local control, while the effect of federal guidelines was to create a tribal bureaucracy controlled in large part by the “memorandum writers” who occupied the Indian desks of the federal granting agencies. Guidelines also resulted in a uniformity of programs across the many supposedly locally controlled CAAs. The African American civil rights movement of the early 1960s had little effect on Indian people; the nationalist movements of the latter part of the decade, however, evoked a stronger response. This was particularly true among the relocated Indians of the cities, who were increasingly critical of the goal of assimilation, whether by termination or by

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

36

Governments and Treaty Making

tribal economic development. They were also critical of the tribal governments, which they viewed as corrupt political machines. On the Pine Ridge Reservation, by the early 1970s urban militants had allied with conservative older Indians who had opposed the Indian Reorganization Act in the mid1930s. They called for a return to the situation that had prevailed before the passage of the Dawes Act. Then, they said, the government dealt with Indian tribes as units without attempting to influence their internal affairs. Political power within the tribes would be based on ascribed status: family ties, age and wisdom, demonstrated leadership. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 77) extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to American Indians by restricting tribal governments’ dealings with their citizens. The act prohibits tribal governments from interfering with religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The statute provides most of the restrictions on government action included in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As an exercise of Congress’s plenary power in Indian affairs, this legislation provides an exception to the general expansion of tribal powers after 1960. In 1973, Congress passed the Menominee Restoration Act (P. L. 93–197, 87 Stat. 770), reversing the termination of the Menominee tribe nearly twenty years earlier. The next year, Congress created the American Indian Policy Review Commission (P. L. 93–580, 88 Stat. 1910). The Indian Education Assistance and Self-Determination Act (P. L. 93–638, 88 Stat. 2206), enacted in 1975, finally ushered in the era of self-determination that Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had called for. The law made it possible for tribes to contract with federal agencies to provide services to their members and to subcontract with other entities to deliver those services. The law encouraged devolution of implementation authority from the federal government to tribal governments and gradually resulted in an expansion of tribal government organizations. The final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, issued in 1977, supported the selfdetermination policy. Other laws enacted during the decade also strengthened tribal governments— notably, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (P. L. 95–608, 92 Stat. 3069) gave tribal courts primary jurisdiction in cases involving Indian children and provided funding to tribes for child welfare services.

www.abc-clio.com

Later congressional legislation emphasized economic development, returning to the business organization provisions of the Wheeler-Howard Act of 1933. The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (P. L. 97–382, 96 Stat. 1940) authorized tribes to contract with energy companies and others to develop the mineral resources on Indian reservations. In the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (P. L. 104–330, 102 Stat. 2467), Congress attempted to strike a balance between state and tribal interests. The act reflected the growing importance of gambling as a source of tribal economic development. Congress recognized tribal interests in gaming but required tribes to negotiate with states before providing Class III gambling—that is, gaming that goes beyond traditional tribal games and bingo. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission to oversee negotiations between tribes and states. Paul H. Stuart

ABC-CLIO

References and Further Reading Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. 1949. Indian Affairs: A Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian. 1966. The Indian: America’s Unfinished Business. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Institute for Government Research. 1928. The Problem of Indian Administration: Report of a Survey made at the request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to him February 21, 1928. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Hagan, William T. 1961. American Indians, rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hagan, William T. 1976. “The Reservation Policy: Too Little and Too Late.” In Indian-White Relations: A Persistent Paradox, ed. Jane F. Smith and Robert M. Kvasnicka, 157–169. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Hyman, Harold L. 1986. American Singularity: The 1787 Northwest Ordinance, the 1862 Homestead and Morrill Acts, and the 1944 G.I. Bill. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Joint Special Committee. 1867. “Condition of the Indian Tribes,” U.S. Senate Reports, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, No. 156, Serial 1279. Kelly, Lawrence C. 1975. “The Indian Reorganization Act: The Dream and the Reality,” Pacific Historical Review 44 (August): 291–312. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

1-800-368-6868

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties

Schmeckebier, Lawrence F. 1927. The Office of Indian Affairs: Its History, Activities, and Organization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Stuart, Paul. 1977. “United States Indian Policy: From the Dawes Act to the American Indian Policy Review Commission,” Social Service Review (September): 451–463.

www.abc-clio.com

37

Stuart, Paul. 1990. “Financing Self-Determination: Federal Indian Expenditures, 1975–1988,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 14(2): 1–18.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

T T

reaty law is one of the major underpinnings of federal Indian law. Throughout the history of the United States, courts have interpreted, misinterpreted, dismissed, and denied the terms of treaty articles signed with Indian tribes. Treaties have longstanding implications for national and international relationships; their impacts sometimes have a wide reach. American Indian treaties with the U.S. government are one of the major characteristics that make the Indian experience unique for the American nation. Because indigenous nations met the earliest Europeans and subsequent immigrants, American Indians have had a long and continuing relationship with both the European predecessors and the descendants of the American republic’s founders. Treaties with indigenous nations became a major vehicle for Native land cessions for the later American republic. For American Indians, land cessions at first were viewed simply as a temporary accommodation for guests. Natives approached bilateral agreements from a perspective radically different from that of European Americans. How they concluded treaties had a bearing on their interpretation of treaty law. Indigenous peoples strove to strike bargains between kinfolk. Outsiders could be turned into fictive relatives through elaborate adoption and welcoming rituals. Rituals involving the sacred pipe were called calumet ceremonies. There were numerous tribal variations on the form of the rituals (Sabo 1992). Once converted into a kinship relationship, the parties to a sacred agreement shared mutual obligations and responsibilities for reciprocity. Once made brothers, kinfolk did not betray the fealty of a brother without the direst of consequences. That was especially true when the supreme creative force of the universe had sanctioned the agreement through the proper performance of ceremonies. Indigenous people and their nations did not fit easily or comfortably into normal political or legal arenas for the American republic’s leaders. Justices who dealt with the topic early in the history of the United States referred to the legal situation as a peculiar relationship. The judiciary deemed the entire relationship of tribes to the United States “an anomalous one” (U.S. v. Kagama 1886, 381). One scholar who devoted his career to an examination of Indian policy issues in the United States summarized his research into Indian treaties with the

assessment that they were “a political anomaly” (oddity) in the nation’s history because the documents and the ties did not fit neatly into European American historical categories (Prucha 1994, 1, 289). Native nations preceded the European American presence; Indian tribes were neither foreign nations nor domestic states but entities in between in their interaction with the federal government. The leading Indian scholar of the last century placed treaties at the very bedrock of the entire federal-Indian relationship (Deloria 1996, 970–971). The interpretation of treaty rights frequently drives much contemporary litigation that focuses on Indian sovereignty and rights. Controversies often focus on American Indian treaties and claims of the violation of treaty rights. Across the nation, local conflicts involved controversies over long-standing treaty obligations toward descendants of the original signers of Indian treaties. American Indians continue to raise treaty rights as the basis for their claims to hunt, to fish, or to regain lost territory, such as the Black Hills for the Sioux. American courts have recognized the long-term implications of Indian treaties for Native rights. Treaties created a trust relationship with the U.S. government that is the heart of federalIndian policy. Provisions of some treaties signed between the federal government and American Indians are still in effect. Other provisions sometimes are revived in court opinions to have renewed impact upon contemporary events. The recognition of historic treaty rights to resources, lands, and position within the national republic contributes to the rich legacy that helps constitute Indian country. Indian treaties have an impact not only within the United States but also internationally. During the colonial period, tribes in the eastern and southwestern portions of the United States concluded alliances with European nations, and some claim a continuous relationship. Emigration, migratory wildlife, whaling, and more are affected. American Indian treaties make up a significant part of the ongoing demands from Native peoples for acknowledgement of their sovereignty and their rights.

Powers of Treaty Making Courts point to the U.S. Constitution as the fundamental source guiding the judiciary’s examination

39 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

40

Governments and Treaty Making

and determination of the impact of treaties. Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution declares, “The President shall . . . have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. . . .” In the Constitution, Article VI, Section 2 provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The United States dealt with Indian tribes as “distinct, independent political communities” (Worcester 1832, 559) through treaties. Chief Justice John Marshall and the Court, in the famous Worcester decision of 1832, voided Georgia state laws impinging upon the Cherokee Nation because the laws were repugnant to treaties, to the U.S. Constitution, and to the laws “giving effect to the treaties” (ibid., 562). Still earlier, the same justice, in a majority opinion, referred to the phrase in the commerce clause of the Constitution. That clause gave Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (Article III, Section 8). The decision found tribes to be neither foreign nations nor domestic states, deeming Indian tribes to be “domestic dependent nations” with a relationship to the United States that “resembles that of a ward to his guardian” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831, 17). Justice Smith Thompson’s noteworthy dissent in 1832 favored Indian nation status in part based upon the treaty interaction (ibid., 50). Scholars have argued that American Indian sovereign rights should be recognized in a new era as reserved rights under the terms of treaties (or agreements), as well as under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the wording “All powers not granted in this Constitution shall be reserved to the States, or to the people” (Wilkins and Lomawaima 2001, 120; Deloria 1996, 972). Tribes still retain sovereignty and still exercise inherent rights of self-government. Those powers have existed since time immemorial. Some tribal leaders seek renegotiated treaty terms, insisting on more inclusive advantages, territorial acquisitions, and recognition of expanded rights. Colonies negotiated with tribes, and European nations concluded agreements with indigenous nations, to secure amity, trade, allies, and land ces-

www.abc-clio.com

sions. After the declaring of American independence in 1776, the rebellious colonies sought Indian allies, or at least Native neutrality, during the Revolutionary War. Following the successful revolution, which secured independence, the fledgling American government also entered into agreements with tribes to secure peace, to identify borders, and to make allies for the postwar period. Courts have interpreted treaties with Native tribes in a variety of ways throughout U.S. history, but they have always recognized treaties as superior to the law of any individual state. In 1905, the Supreme Court set out the historical fact of treaty making with tribes, acknowledging that an Indian treaty is “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those not granted” (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 381). A treaty did not give rights to Indians; rather, through their treaty, Indians granted away rights they already had. Ideally, treaties are agreements negotiated between equals. Like the federal powers set forth in the Constitution, Indian tribes possess inherent powers, not ceded through treaties, that are not articulated until needed. Tribes retain or reserve sovereign powers unless expressly granted away by treaty or expressly taken from the tribe through federal statute. Sometime treaties simply acknowledged rights that Indians “from time immemorial . . . always had and enjoyed” (Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly 1941, 78). The Court has reasoned that a treaty between the negotiators for the United States and an Indian tribe is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations. The judiciary has acknowledged the varying circumstances under which treaty negotiations have taken place through the nation’s history. Most often, agreements arose out of unequal relationships. Obviously, treaties made under threat were inherently unfair and one-sided. Sometimes, U.S. negotiators sidestepped American Indian opposition to the terms they presented and simply affixed signatures or Xs to the document or, in the case of the Kiowa in 1892, returned to the nation’s capital and added the marks to the end of the document (Clark 1999, 48). It was a fraudulent tactic but an expedient one. At other times, U.S. authorities reacted to Indian opposition by passing laws seizing Indian territory, such as Black Hills legislation in 1877 or allotment in severalty acts. Over time, as the relative power position between the United States and Indian nations changed, the U.S. government imposed terms on disparate groups that allegedly represented entire Indian nations, and then the Senate quickly ratified

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

the “treaty” as if it had come from the wellspring of the demands of a whole Native nation. Around the time of the American Civil War, a growing clamor arose among government agents, missionaries, and other leaders, calling for an end to treaty making with tribes. Part of the expressed concern arose from ongoing conflicts between government agencies over which branch, military or civilian, would control Indian affairs. Another reason related to U.S. insistence on reflecting the changed situation between the national government and tribes. Pressure from business interests that believed they were hampered in their dealings with Native peoples as a result of the constraints of treaties added another excuse. Other people sought more Indian lands, believing treaties stood in their way. The clash between the houses of Congress over ultimate control of Indian affairs, involving executive branch privileges, helped determine the outcome. Congress responded to the call and in 1871 enacted an amendment to an Indian appropriations bill that halted treaty making with tribes (Act of 3 March 1871, 16 Stat. 566, sect. 1). The act stated that treaties made prior to 1871 were not affected, that “. . . no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.” In the future, the president could authorize executive agreements with consenting tribes, agreements that would be ratified by both houses of Congress (Prucha 1984, I, 527–533; Wunder 1985). Agreements that could be ratified by both houses of Congress continued to be made until 1911. Thereafter, Congress authorized numerous measures that directly dealt with Indian lands and rights, but the enactments were not officially termed treaties. Two examples are the federal acknowledgement, in the contemporary era, of the Mashantucket Pequot in their land claims settlement act in the state of Connecticut, and recognition of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (usually called the Tigua) within the state of Texas in 1988 (former, 25 U.S.C. § 1751, 1988; latter, 101 Stat. 666). Although such measures are called land settlement acts now, they are in reality agreements negotiated with tribal governments, once termed Indian treaties. Contemporary tribal compacts with state and local governments perform the same function as historic bilateral treaties. Treaty terms varied widely in the length of time they ran and the effects they had. Courts sometimes have ruled that the terms of a particular article of a treaty no longer hold. Some treaty terms, such as the

www.abc-clio.com

41

payment of annual annuities to Pawnee tribal members, are still in effect. At other times, courts have recognized Indian treaty rights long after the original historical circumstances had radically changed. Beginning in the late 1960s, federal courts upheld the Northwest tribes’ treaty “right of taking fish” in the region (U.S. v. Washington 1975, 683). Other examples occurred in the 1980s and in 1999, when the Supreme Court ruled that Chippewa Indian band members retained their rights for hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering, both on and off their reservation (the latter are called usufructuary rights), that were guaranteed to them under their treaty (Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt 1983; Minnesota v. Mille Lacs 1999, 176; Wilkinson 1991). From time to time, Congress also enacts legislation to implement terms of past treaties. One example is the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, passed in 1985 (P. L. 99–5, 99 Stat. 7). The measure established a U.S.-Canadian commission that included Indian representation to oversee the protection of tribal treaty international fishing stocks. The commission tries to address problems arising from the multinational impact of North Pacific fishing resource questions. Additional challenges are posed by the enforcement of treaty terms and congressional appropriation of funding to support the implementation of treaty terms.

The Canons of Treaty Construction Ambiguous Expressions Must Be Resolved in Favor of Indians The conditions under which two sides negotiated treaties left much to be desired, as a result of power differentials, language and cultural barriers, and a host of other problems. Discerning what a figure in history thought or believed with certainty is next to impossible, given the lapse of time and the difficulties of documentation. Jurists have struggled through the years with the basic question of how to interpret treaty language and how to reconcile treaty rights with congressional and court desires, local and state demands, to end the terms of treaties. Courts established rules under which treaties could consistently be interpreted for a period of time. The rules regarding treaties are called canons of construction (or guidelines). Judges have held that any significant ambiguities in interpretation of treaty rights must be resolved in the favor of Indians because of language barriers and as a result of cultural differences. When brothers erected fishwheels on the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

42

Governments and Treaty Making

Columbia River, relying on their state license to permit them to take a large amount of fish, Yakima Indians objected because of the rapid depletion of fish resources. The Indians insisted on recognition of their treaty right to fish. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that treaties must be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them. The Indians could fish on the river (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 371). In Winters v. U.S. (1908, 576), the same Court ruled that, if ambiguities occur in the interpretation of agreements and treaties, “ambiguities will be resolved from the standpoint of the Indians.” “Doubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of the weak and defenseless people who are wards of the nation, dependent upon its protection and good faith” (Carpenter v. Shaw 1930, 367). In part, the Court reasoned that American Indians could discern neither the meaning of English phrases as a foreign language nor the disguised meaning of English words and phrases, even if the Natives spoke some English (Winters 1908, 577). Moreover, the McClanahan decision of 1973 asserted, in a case that examined state taxation of a reservation resident’s income, that the Indians’ dire circumstances surrounding the forced signing of a treaty in 1868 lent credence to the interpretation of the document in favor of the Indians (McClanahan 1973, 174). This canon of construction has wide application. It has been applied to Indian grazing rights that carried with them priority rights within a national forest even though the Indian treaty and subsequent agreement made no mention of those specific rights (Swim v. Bergland 1983, 716–718). In 1999, the Court also upheld such a reading of treaty rights in a decision dealing with Chippewa Indians’ hunting and fishing rights across a swath of the southern Great Lakes region (Mille Lacs 1999, 200, 206).

Treaties Must Be Interpreted as Indians Understood Them Although court opinions have weighed in on all sides of treaty interpretation, one of the mainstays of viewing an Indian treaty has been that the document must be interpreted according to what the Indians thought the articles meant. This is another major canon of treaty construction. As an example, the Choctaw treaty of 1830 provided that “in the construction of this Treaty wherever well founded doubt shall arise, it shall be construed most favorably towards the Choctaws” (Treaty of 27 Sep. 1830 at Dancing Rabbit Creek, 7 Stat. 333, Article 18). After all, the United States sought out Native tribes for

www.abc-clio.com

negotiations. The federal government often coerced tribe members into negotiating. “The Indian Nations did not seek out the United States and agree upon an exchange of lands in an arm’s-length transaction. Rather, treaties were imposed on them and they had no choice but to consent” (Choctaw Nation v. U.S. 1970, 630–631). Just before the turn of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court restated an earlier decree that an Indian treaty “therefore must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians” (Jones v. Meehan 1899, 11; Choate 1912, 675; Washington v. Washington Fishing Assn. 1979, 676). In 1979, the Court examined fourteen treaties among four Puget Sound tribes in the Pacific Northwest, involving the issue of treaty negotiations over rights to territory and to fish; the Court ruled, “It is absolutely clear, as Governor [Isaac] Stevens himself said, that neither he nor the Indians intended that the latter ‘should be excluded from their ancient fisheries,’ and it is accordingly inconceivable that either party deliberately agreed to authorize future settlers to crowd the Indians out of any meaningful use of their accustomed places to fish. That each individual Indian would share an ‘equal opportunity’ with thousands of newly arrived individual settlers is totally foreign to the spirit of the negotiations. Such a ‘right,’ along with the $207,500 paid the Indians, would hardly have been sufficient to compensate them for the millions of acres they ceded to the Territory [of Washington]” (ibid.). In a shocking pronouncement, if treaties were signed between roughly equal sovereigns, the Court reasoned, then each side was due roughly half the fish harvest (ibid., 687). Because the tribes’ populations had dwindled while the settlers’ numbers had exploded, the smaller tribes received as much of the fish harvest as the much larger surrounding non-Indian populace.

Treaties Must Be Construed in Favor of Indians The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians when there is disputed language about the implementation of the terms of a treaty (ibid., 676, 678; Choctaw Nation v. U.S. 1970, 432; Mille Lacs 1999, 200). This is yet another major canon of construction. One of the most generous interpretations of Indian treaty language was in the Winters decision of 1908, in which a federal district court held that it was implicit in the treaties that sufficient waters for tribal use were preserved, preceding and preempting any

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

other rights subsequently established by state law or use. The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion. The tribe not only had treaty rights guaranteed to it but also had reserved to it all the rights necessary to carry out the purpose of the treaty, including the first use of scarce water for Indian agriculture. Courts have rendered similarly supportive rulings in favor of Indian rights under other treaties (Swim 1983, 716; Grand Traverse Band 1998, 639). This canon of construction also has broad application to other areas of Indian country. An appeals court in 1998 applied the liberal interpretation of a treaty from 1855 to grant Yakima Indian truck drivers who were hauling reservation timber over state highways immunity from state vehicle permit fees (Cree v. Flores 1998, 769, 771). The same year, another appellate court proclaimed that members of a Chippewa band could anchor their commercial fishing vessels at a public dock on the shore of a lake, as a result of construing Indian treaties from 1836 and 1855 liberally in favor of the Indians, even though the documents did not say anything specifically about commercial mooring rights (Grand Traverse Band 1998, 638–639). Court pronouncements have extended the maxims for benefiting Indians when interpreting treaties to the examination of federal statutes. The canons of treaty construction have been applied broadly to federal statutes dealing with American Indians. A unanimous Court in 1974 found that administrative rules and regulations should favor tribes in interpreting treaty law (Morton v. Ruiz 1974, 229). Furthermore, where Indians are concerned, the normal rules of interpretation for statutes do not apply: “. . . federal statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Native Americans, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit” (EEOC v. Cherokee Nation 1989, 939). Similarly, the usual deference shown in court for agency administrative interpretation of ambiguous statutes also does not apply to American Indians (Muscogee [Creek] Nation v. Hodel 1988, 1444–1445; Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe 1985, 766; Oneida County 1985, 247; Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior 2000, 92; Ramah Navajo Chapter 1997, 1462). Two additional examples illustrate the trend. A circuit court in 1982 held that the secretary of the interior had violated the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ regulations regarding petroleum leases, and any doubt over interpreting the regulations had to be resolved in favor of the Indians (Jicarilla v. Andrus 1982, 1332). An appeals court applied the same sentiment to BIA interpretation of an ambiguous statute regarding complicated educational funding formula calcula-

www.abc-clio.com

43

tions in 1997 and found in favor of the Indians. The court stated that “if the [Act] can reasonably be construed as the Tribe would have it construed, [then] it must be construed that way” (Ramah 1997, 1432; Muscogee v. Hodel 1988, 1445).

Plenary Power The U.S. Congress gave to itself the political authority, also called plenary power, to enact laws altering Indian policies. Plenary power also has an effect upon Indian treaties. In its major statement on the subject, the Supreme Court ruled, in the infamous decision involving the Kiowa leader Lone Wolf, that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress sweeping power over American Indians. Indeed, Indian treaties were similar, in the Court’s view, to federal statues (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 1903, 568; Warren v. Tax Comm 1965, 380.) As such, under this approach Congress has the authority to limit rights promised to Indian tribes in treaties. Going back in time, after the American Civil War, amid a growing chorus to open Indian lands to pioneer settlement, Supreme Court justices reasserted congressional plenary power in a decision regarding tobacco manufactured just inside the boundary of the Cherokee Nation. Article 10 of the Cherokee treaty of 1866 had clearly pledged that the Cherokee could sell merchandise without paying “any tax thereon which . . . may be levied by the United States” (15 Stat. 167). In its decision, the Court recognized congressional authority to modify an Indian treaty and to enact a measure in direct violation of the treaty “as if the treaty were not an element to be considered” (Cherokee Tobacco 1870, 621). The Court relied upon what is called the “last-intime” rule, under which a congressional statute that is the latest enactment in time supersedes a previous treaty. Among succeeding examples is the Court’s ruling in 1882 that legislation creating the State of Colorado in 1875 “repeals . . . any existing treaty” blocking its path (U.S. v. McBratney 1881, 623). Fourteen years afterward, the Court also stated that Indian treaties “should not be made an instrument for violating the public faith by distorting the words of a treaty,” thereby jeopardizing the rights of citizens in Wyoming fully to regulate hunting (Ward v. Race Horse 1896, 516). Since the latter could be amended or repealed, therefore, Congress could alter the terms or even abolish the terms of treaties with tribes. Still later, the same high tribunal ruled that it was unfortunately “too late” for the president

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

44

Governments and Treaty Making

of the United States to protect the Indians in their treaty rights and left the Natives to the fate of congressional whim (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 75).

Takings The most notorious decision regarding the outright seizure of Indian Territory is the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S. opinion of 1995. In that pronouncement, the Court voiced the draconian assumption that the United States could take Indian lands, even those protected by treaties. Moreover, the Court decreed, under the Fifth Amendment the United States could seize Tlingit lands in Alaska without payment because of the false contention in the ruling that “the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force” used by the conqueror (Tee-Hit-Ton 1955, 289). The Tee-Hit-Ton band had no treaty relationship with the United States. Congress had not enacted legislation recognizing their lands or status. No recognition, no rights. As Congress had not authorized ownership, Indian occupancy “may be extinguished by the Government without compensation” (ibid., 288). Tribes lost their land rights because the conqueror took them. If unprotected by a treaty or a federal statute, then, the Court ruled, the United States could take Indian lands without due process of law, without just compensation, and without concern for the usual requirement that such a taking of the land needed to be for a public purpose. Constructing federal statutes so they state congressional intent to abrogate treaty rights, including vested property rights for which compensation must be paid under the Fifth Amendment, avoided the obligation for financial payment. Through its decision in Shoshone v. U.S. (1937), the Supreme Court announced that treaty rights are a form of property and as such are under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the just compensation clause. If those rights are taken away, then compensation must be paid. In 1980, the Court repudiated the taking of Indian lands without compensation at the same time the jurists also repudiated the most flagrant exercise of plenary power where American Indians are concerned. In U.S. v. Sioux Nation, the Court held that just compensation must be paid under the Fifth Amendment if treaty rights are violated (U.S. v. Sioux Nation 1980, 408). When seizing more than 20 percent of the Tuscarora Indian reservation for a hydroelectric project, the Court invoked slim evidence that Congress intended to abrogate the Ameri-

www.abc-clio.com

can Indian title to Seneca land coveted for the Allegheny Reservoir. The Kinzua Dam project created the reservoir. The Court concluded that Congress must have known and considered the catastrophic impact of flooding 10,000 acres of Indian land, as well as using the remaining 2,300 acres for highway access to serve the reservoir (Seneca Nation v. U.S. 1965, 56; Josephy 1984). When the Court approved the seizure of Tuscarora Indian land for a hydroelectric project that would drown Native land, Justice Hugo Black wrote a stinging dissent. He diverged from his colleagues’ determination that public utilities, acting under license from the Federal Power Commission, could condemn Tuscarora lands for a power project. Alarmingly, the Court ruled that “general Acts of Congress apply to Indians as well as to others in the absence of a clear expression to the contrary” (FPC v. Tuscarora 1960, 120). Justice Black remarked that “great nations like great men should keep their word” (ibid., 142)

Abrogation To end or take away a treaty’s effect is to abrogate it. Courts have ruled that treaty terms may be violated or altered if new circumstances arise that necessitate the change. Lawmakers have also rationalized the abrogation of Indian treaties when the delegates wanted to open Indian lands to further sale and settlement. In its clearest expression of opposition to Indian treaties, at the start of the twentieth century in the Lone Wolf decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that congressional plenary power granted to that body full rights to end the terms of any Indian treaty when Congress deemed it necessary to carry out national policies. Judges drew from earlier Court edicts such as Cherokee Tobacco and Kagama. The Lone Wolf opinion announced, “The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty. . . . [It] was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, . . . particularly if consistent with perfect good faith towards the Indians” (Lone Wolf 1903, 568). The Court subsequently chipped away at the Lone Wolf doctrine, but the pronouncement has never been fully repudiated and remains established law. Justice Edward Douglass White’s “good faith effort” in the decision set a standard for violating Indian treaty rights and taking Indian land that successive courts tried to follow. Courts looked for evidence that congressional deliberations considered some impacts from the abrogation of a treaty’s

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

terms. The high court has upheld the rule that Congress must clearly express its intent to abrogate an Indian treaty (Missouri v. Holland 1919, 417, 421; Mattz v. Arnett 1973, 505). The decision of 1968 regarding the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin supported Indian treaty rights and found that the pertinent legislation, such as the tribe’s termination act in 1954 (68 Stat. 250) and Public Law 280 in 1953 (67 Stat. 588) passed by the same Congress, did not specifically mention Indian hunting and fishing rights falling under state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court applied the “not lightly implied” test and ascertained that the Menominee Termination Act did not abrogate those rights. Moreover, the Court, in a remarkably solicitous attitude, reported it did not believe that Congress intended to abrogate Native treaty rights in “a backhanded way” (Menominee 1968, 412). Building upon that decree, the Court later added that it felt “extreme reluctance to find congressional abrogation of Indian treaty rights in the absence of explicit statutory language so directing” (U.S. v. Washington 1975, 689). In a more recent announcement, the Supreme Court ruled that, when Congress enacted legislation to protect the endangered bald eagle and required permits for Indians to take eagles for religious purposes, such action reflected Congress’s belief “that it was abrogating the rights of Indians to take eagles” even under treaty guarantees (U.S. v. Dion 1986, 743; Laurence 1991; Townsend 1989). Earlier, the Court attempted to clarify its stance when it said, in the Menominee decision in 1968, that treaties cannot be abrogated “in a backhanded way.” Instead, the Court held that there must be clear and explicit language to abrogate Indian treaties when Congress enacts legislation. In 1986, however, the Court opinion lessened the requirement and expanded the impact. The Court held that there need be only “clear evidence that Congress actually considered the conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” (U.S. v. Dion 1986, 740; U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad 1941, 354). Courts have sanctioned the violation of treaty rights in a variety of other ways. Courts have seen fit to permit the violation of Indian treaty rights under the so-called conservation necessity standard for states to impose regulations on Indian hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in the interest of enforcement of state conservation regulations (Puyallup Tribe 1968, 398; Antoine 1974, 207–208). More disturbing,

www.abc-clio.com

45

on occasion courts have held that, even if not stated at all, the mere enactment of a statute violating a treaty meant that Congress had considered all the consequences and intended to alter the treaty. This is termed “implied abrogation.” In its decision of 1986, justices surmised that “the [C]ourt believes that Congress would have” circumscribed Native hunting and treaty rights. To the Court there was clear evidence—however, never stated—that Congress had considered the consequences of violating treaty rights. In the clash over Indians’ use of feathers of species protected under federal and international wildlife enactments, the most noteworthy pronouncement involved two Yankton Sioux Indians. The Court held that legislation to protect endangered bald eagles and the requirement for permits for Natives to take eagles for religious purposes reflected Congress’s belief “that it was abrogating the rights of Indians to take eagles” even under treaty guarantees (Dion 1986, 740, 743). Justices assumed that Congress must have discussed the consequences and must have known the impact. Opinions following in time have taken the presumption in a different direction. Jurists have held that, if an old treaty or agreement did not specifically mention a modern need, then it was neither permitted nor reserved to the tribe (Oregon Department 1985, 754, 767, 770). In 1991, a district judge in Wisconsin ruled that rights for Chippewa Indians reserved under 1837 and 1842 treaties did not include the right to harvest timber commercially (Lac Courte Oreilles 1991, 700). In 2001, the Court added a bitter twist to the usual interpretation of statutes in favor of Indians when it ruled that any tax exemption arising from Indian gaming must have been clearly and explicitly expressed, turning the canon of construction on its head (Chickasaw Nation v. U.S. 2001, 90). During the term of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court drastically narrowed many rights for Indian tribes. Brusque opinions sidestepped tribal sovereignty in favor of state intrusions into Native governmental activities. Throughout U.S. history, American Indians have faced local and state opposition to Native rights. Local and state authorities have sometimes ignored Indian rights or at other times actively enforced local and state regulations that violated indigenous rights. State officials have eroded or denied Indian rights to fish, hunt, and gather for seasonal needs. That line of reasoning echoes in court opinions. Anti-Indian groups, when not slinging vitriol over the subject of Indian rights, advocate either terminating tribes and abolishing

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

46

Governments and Treaty Making

tribal rights or severely restricting those rights (Williams and Neubrech, 1976). Some of the assumptions are reflected in Court rulings. In 1998, a majority opinion remarked that American Indian tribal rights will “fade over time” (South Dakota 1998, 798). The chief justice, in a biting 1999 dissent, acidly commented that Indian treaty rights are only “temporary and precarious” (Mille Lacs 1999, 219–220). C. Blue Clark References and Further Reading Court Cases Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1974). Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (1930). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). Cherokee Tobacco, 78 Wall. 616 (1870). Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 534 U.S. 84 (2001). Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912). Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 397 U.S. 620 (1970). Connecticut v. U.S. Department of Interior, 228 F. 3d 82 (2d Cir., 2000). Cree v. Flores, 157 F. 3d 762 (9th Cir., 1998). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F. 2d 937 (10th Cir., 1989). Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960). Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Director of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 141 F. 2d 635 (6th Cir., 1998). Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Cecil Andrus, 697 F. 2d 1324 (10th Cir., 1982). Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899). Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Lester Voigt, 700 F. 2d 341 (1983). Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. State of Wisconsin, 758 F. Supp. 1262 (W.D.Wis., 1991). Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 39 F. Supp. 75 (1941). Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973). McClananan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). Menominee Tribe v. U.S., 391 U.S. 404 (1968). Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999). Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1919). Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759 (1985). Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974). Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F. 2d 1439 (D.C. Cir., 1988). Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985). Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 391 U.S. 392 (1968).

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, 112 F. 3d 1455 (10th Cir., 1997). Seneca Nation of Indians v. U.S., 338 F. 2d 55 (2d Cir., 1964); cert. denied, 380 U.S. 952 (1965). Shoshone v. U.S., 304 U.S. 111 (1937). South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 118 S. Ct. 789 (1998). Swim v. Bergland, 696 F. 2d 712 (1983). Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S., 348 U.S. 272 (1955). U.S. v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986). U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). U.S. v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881). U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339 (1941). U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). U.S. v. Washington, 520 F. 2d 676 (1975). U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905). Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896). Warren Trading Post v. State Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685 (1965). Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Books and Articles Chambers, Reid P. 1975. “Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians.” Stanford Law Review, 27 (May): 1213–1248. Clark, Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cohen, Fay. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cohen, Felix. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Handbook of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen, 33–67. Washington, DC: Interior Department/ Government Printing Office. [Repr. by Interior Department, 1958; UNM, 1972; ed. by Rennard Strickland, Mitchie, BobbsMerrill, 1982]. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves: Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.” Arizona Law Review, 38, 3 (Fall): 963–980. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Josephy, Alvin, Jr. 1984. “Cornplanter, Can You Swim?” In Now That the Buffalo’s Gone, ed. Alvin Josephy, Jr., 127–150. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31 (Fall): 859–886.

1-800-368-6868

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Sabo, George. 1992. “Rituals of Encounter: Interpreting Native American Views of European Explorers.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly, 51 (Spring): 54–68. Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): 793–812. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the

www.abc-clio.com

47

Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review (May-June): 375–414. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows Upon the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?” California Law Review, 63 (January): 601–661. Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle, WA: Outdoor Empire. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of Indian Rights to Their Homelands” in Working the Range: Essays on the History of Western Land Management and the Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements Development of the European Nation State and International Law

C

ommunities of peoples have negotiated agreements with one another for thousands of years. Treaties dating from Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hittite times still exist, written in cuneiform on clay tablets and laying out terms of peace, land exchange, and trade. First applied to the negotiation process rather than to the document, the term treaty ultimately came to mean an agreement made by the highest authority, or sovereign, as opposed to sponsions and other agreements made without the full commission of the sovereign (Grotius 1925, 391). The current understanding of treaties, as documents negotiated to establish relations among states and as a primary source of international law, developed as Europe moved from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. In the fifteenth century, the Catholic Church, despite its history of corruption and schisms, retained its preeminent power as the religious and secular European authority. The pope, considered God’s representative, possessed the authority to crown and dispose of secular rulers, to settle disputes, to excommunicate individuals from the body of the Church and from everlasting salvation, and to bestow legitimacy on new ideas and fields of knowledge or declare them heretical. Three hundred years later, technological advancements, discoveries of new lands and resources, and the rise of the nationstate had severely undermined the authority of the Catholic Church. The introduction of multiple masts and sails and construction of the caravel (a small, threemasted ship) allowed European rulers to expand their trade and commerce and to sail to new parts of the world, where they found lands of untold resources, sizes, and possibilities. Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of movable type around 1450 opened education and knowledge to those beyond the Church. The adoption of gunpowder from China between 1500 and 1600 created a military revolution, allowing European rulers the means to solidify and expand their control over their lands in continental Europe and in the newfound territories. All these technological improvements assisted the Portuguese and the Spanish in their rediscovery of Africa and the Western Hemisphere. In 1420, under the direction of Prince Henry the Navigator,

C

the Portuguese reached the Madeira Islands and ushered in the European age of exploration. Seven years later, Portuguese explorers had reached the Azores; in 1456, the Cape Verde Islands. Four years before Bartholomeu Dias sailed around the southernmost tip of Africa in 1488, King John of Portugal had declined to support Christopher Columbus’s proposal to sail eastward. Acquiring the support of Queen Isabella of Spain, Columbus rediscovered the Western Hemisphere in 1492. To avoid conflict with Portugal, Queen Isabella requested that Pope Alexander VI divide these newly discovered oceans and lands between the two nations. In 1494, Pope Alexander VI, following negotiations between King John II and Queen Isabella, issued the Treaty of Tordesilla of 1494, dividing the earth by drawing a demarcation line 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. As the wealth from these new lands swelled the Spanish and Portuguese coffers, the French and English explorers, disputing the pope’s authority to divide the earth, sent their own explorers to claim new lands. Papal authority came under decided political attack in 1576 when the French jurist and natural law philosopher Jean Bodin published The Six Books of the Commonwealth. Contained within these essays was the new philosophical concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty, Bodin argued, was the existence of a unified authority in a political community. As the sovereign, the French king held absolute and perpetual power within the French state (Bodin 1576). The monarch derived this total authority to govern from God, not from the pope. As sovereign, the king possessed the authority to make laws binding on its subjects, to declare war and peace, to establish state offices, and to act as the final court of redress. As the political, economic, and military powers of the developing European nation-states grew and the pope’s authority declined, monarchs recognized the need to regulate their interactions through the development of binding international legal principles and documents, which bore an assortment of names, including treaty, agreement, act, statute, and covenant, among many others. By 1739, Jean Barbeyric had listed sixty subjects of treaties. A reference in the 1427 British Rolls of Parliament is the

49 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

50

Governments and Treaty Making

first known European use of the term treaty (Meyers 1957, 579). Approximately a quarter century later, the printing of papal bulls in 1461 is recorded as the first publication of an international document. The first collection of treaties was published in 1643, five years before the negotiation of the Treaty of Westphalia, identified by many scholars as the first modern treaty leading to the development of modern international relations (Liverani 1980, 50). International law at this time had no prescribed procedure or format for treaty making. As long as the appropriate sovereign authority had approved the negotiations and provisions, the agreement constituted a treaty, whether written or oral. In 1758, Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss jurist, published the Law of Nations, considered the first textbook on international law. In the Law of Nations, Vattel defined a treaty as “[a] compact entered into by sovereigns for the welfare of the State, either in perpetuity or for a considerable length of time . . .” (Vattel 1916, 160). The highest state authority could only enter into treaties (ibid., 160). In Sections 220–221, Vattel emphasized the principle that became a fundamental rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda, that treaties are “sacred” and must be upheld. States that violate “the faith of treaties”—a faith that is sacred— violates the law of nations. Treaties, the European theorists agreed, created international norms that are binding and inviolable.

Treaty Negotiation between European Powers and Indian Nations The Spanish monarchs, who were highly religious as well as legalistic, held innumerable discussions and councils to determine the proper treatment of these newly discovered inhabitants and their lands. Laws were published and revised, and conquests stopped for various periods as the most highly regarded intellectuals of the Spanish realm debated any number of issues. Were these Natives a natural part or a new branch of animals or humanity? Did their nature as heathens allow the Spanish to enslave them, to take their lands, to make war and conquer them, and to forcibly convert them to Christianity? Spanish laws and policies toward the Native inhabitants and their lands initially allowed the unspeakable annihilation of Native communities and confiscation of their lands and resources. Theologians such as Bartolomé de Las Casas, Francisco

www.abc-clio.com

Suárez, and Francisco de Vitoria (the latter two known as among the first proponents of international law) vociferously argued against Spanish policies in the Western Hemisphere, raising questions and putting forth principles relating to just war, the proper means of obtaining title to inhabited lands, statehood, and the just treatment of peoples. Often referred to as the father of human rights, Vitoria argued that the proper mode for relating to the Native inhabitants was through negotiations and treaties. Only if the Native inhabitants refused to conclude treaties establishing a relationship with Spain could the Spanish legally and morally go to war. Slowly but eventually, Spanish laws in theory (but not always in practice) reflected the ideas and principles espoused by these thinkers. As explorers and settlers traveled to the Western Hemisphere, increasing the competition among the European powers, rulers directed their representatives to negotiate with the Indian nations for access to land, resources, and trade and to form military alliances. As suggested by Vitoria, the negotiation of treaties proved the most effective procedure for accomplishing these objectives. The total number of treaties concluded by Spain and the other European nations with the Indian nations is unknown. Many early treaties were oral, their existence known only through descriptions written at the time of the councils and the subsequent agreements. Over time, European representatives, needing to prove the existence of these agreements to their competitors, formalized the agreements in written form. Many of these documents have disappeared or remain hidden in state and personal archives and personal collections throughout the world. As discussed below, European states in general regarded the treaties concluded with the Indian powers as equal to and as legally binding as the treaties they concluded with one another. Vattel also addressed this issue in Law of Nations, stating that “faith of treaties has no relation to the difference of religion, and cannot in any manner depend upon it.” As for treaties concluded with infidels, Vattel, citing Grotius, states that only natural laws and not spiritual law were to govern the “Rule of treaties of Nations” (ibid., 162). Grotius, too, had earlier referred to this issue, pointing out that treaties made between equal sovereigns and those made between unequal sovereigns differed in subject matter, not validity. Treaties between equal sovereigns generally dealt with the return of captives, the restoration of property, commerce arrangements, and mutual

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

assistance. Treaties between strong and weak heads of states, in which an impairment of sovereignty resulted, discussed indemnities, withdrawal from territory, and the surrender of fortresses. Treaty making, no matter the time or culture, involves a negotiation process followed by a symbolic acceptance of the agreed-upon terms. As did most societies, the Indian nations of North, Central, and South America possessed their own traditional forms of negotiating agreements, resolving disputes, and ending wars. Vine Deloria, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie, in their important two-volume work, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, describe two of these procedures. The Indian nations in the Great Lakes area solidified their agreements with the exchange of wampum and gifts. Other Indian nations employed special and sacred ceremonies that, once performed, signified the end of hostilities and the restoration of mutual peace. Among the Sioux people, the sacred pipe ceremony restored peace among enemies. DeMallie and Deloria (1999) also provide a general overview of Indian treaty-making procedures. No matter the tribe’s particular negotiation procedure or the ultimate symbol of acceptance, the tribal parties, like the western world, regarded the negotiations and ensuing agreements as binding. Although the Native and the western worlds both regarded their negotiated agreements as legitimate and valid, Deloria and DeMallie (1999) point out a subtle but important distinction between the two cultures in their understanding, approach, and ultimate responsibility to these agreements. Among Native communities, agreements— especially those ending a state of conflict—represented a sacred commitment by each side to alter their relationship with one another. The agreement to establish peace was a decision to actively create “a distinct state of being.” It was not, as understood in western society, simply an agreement to desist from certain practices that caused conflict. From a cultural perspective, Indian nations understood treaties and agreements as sacred. The words, whether spoken or written, were living representations of each party’s commitment to the other. The western approach to treaty making was of a different and far more practical magnitude. Although, as Vattel emphasized, states were bound by natural law to honor their treaty commitments—otherwise they were of little benefit—the treaty process was an efficient procedure and treaties a practical vehicle for obtaining one’s

www.abc-clio.com

51

objectives through give-and-take. Although they supposedly remained legally binding, the treaty procedure and document, once concluded, had fulfilled their purpose. This differing cultural understanding of agreements further affected the two cultures’ choices of negotiation procedures. Given the sanctity and totality with which many tribal peoples imbued their decisions, the agreement had to be thoroughly considered and supported. In many tribes, those given the authority to negotiate did not possess the power to ratify. Depending upon the particular tribal arrangement, decisions may have required the support of clan leaders, the approval of related bands, or full tribal consensus. This decision-making process often proved lengthy and infuriating to the Europeans and (especially later) to the Americans, who preferred to settle issues quickly and smoothly. The Dutch negotiated one of the first known treaties in North America, with the Iroquois in 1613 (Van Loon 1968, 22–26). D’Arcy McNickle discusses an important treaty concluded between the Mohawks and Dutch in 1643 that may have played a role in the Mohawks’ annihilation of the Huron Nation in 1645. France concluded many treaties with tribes, including a treaty of friendship with the Onondaga on June 2, 1622, two with the Six Nations in 1633 and 1635, and two with the Huron Nation in 1641 and 1645 (McNickle 1973, 130). The total number of pre–Revolutionary War treaties concluded by England and the colonies with the Indian nations is unknown. Benjamin Franklin published thirteen treaties concluded by the Pennsylvania colony with various tribes from 1738–1762 (Boyd 1938). Later, on Canada’s behalf, Great Britain concluded eleven treaties with Indian nations living within Canadian boundaries. It is interesting to note that Canada did not receive the authority to negotiate treaties as a sovereign entity until the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Another fifty-four treaties concluded between the English colonies and the eastern tribes from 1677 to 1768 appear in a 1917 collection by H. DePuy (DePuy 1917). Deloria and DeMallie include information on another five treaties that England concluded with various non-Iroquoian tribes, such as the Chippewa, the Potawatomi, the Ottawa, and others, between 1777 and 1798. The treaty of 1752 between Governor Peregrine Thomas Hopson and the Micmac Indians serves as an example of the many treaties concluded during the pre–Revolutionary War period. The treaty comprised eight articles, the first of which renewed

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

52

Governments and Treaty Making

former treaties. The second article established an alliance between the parties, and the third and fourth articles detailed the signatories’ agreements on trade and hunting and fishing practices. The fifth and sixth articles stipulated the payment, agreed to by the English, to the tribe in return for their negotiations. In the seventh article, the tribes agreed to assist shipwrecked mariners, and the final article provided a procedure for resolving disputes (DePuy 1917, 30). Two years later, in October 1754 in Philadelphia, the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania colonies negotiated one of their most important treaties with the Six Nations (McNickle 1973, 137). In a treaty of military alliance, the Six Nations agreed to align themselves with the English in their war against France—an alliance that may have saved England’s claim to the eastern half of the United States (ibid., 132.). A final example is a multilateral treaty negotiated in 1758 among the Pennsylvania and the New Jersey colonies and the Six Nations, the Delaware, the Minnisink, and other Indian tribes to settle a land dispute between New Jersey and the Minnisink Indians and to cede formerly purchased lands back to the Six Nations (DePuy 1917, 44). Spain, as mentioned earlier, concluded a number of treaties with Indian nations throughout the Western Hemisphere. Within the area that became the United States, DeMallie and Deloria list two groups of Spanish treaties negotiated with the Indian nations. The first list includes treaties reached between Spain and the southeastern Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Cherokee nations between 1784 and 1802. The second group covers treaties negotiated between Spain and the Comanche, the Navajo, and the Apache from 1786 to 1819 (DeMallie and Deloria 1999, 106–107). The Spanish treaties with the southeastern Indian nations are particularly interesting for their insight into the Europeans’ view of Indian treaties. Following British cession to Spain of its claims to Florida, the Muscogee Creek chief, Alexander McGillivray, wrote to the Spanish governor, asking that Spain accept the Creek Nation as a protectorate: If in the event of war Britain has been compelled to withdraw its protection from us, she has no right to transfer us with their former possessions to any power whatever contrary to our inclination and interest. We certainly as a free Nation have a right to choose our protector . . . (Caughey 1938, 64–65)

www.abc-clio.com

Spain agreed, and in the treaty signed at Pensacola on June 1, 1784, the Creeks promised to “maintain an inviolable peace and fidelity toward Spain” and agreed to the formation of a mutual defense alliance (American State Papers, 279). This treaty was the first of several that Spain concluded with tribes in western Florida for military alliances and for small land cessions for the construction of Spanish forts and trading stations (Holmes 1969, 140–154). Although the Creeks promised in the Pensacola treaty to obey the “sovereign orders” of the province’s commandant, the Spanish clearly did not consider the Creeks to be stripped of the external sovereignty. In 1786, the Muscogee Creek Nation, without consulting their Spanish allies, waged war on Georgia for refusing to stop settlers from moving onto the Creek lands. The Creeks reminded their protector that the Pensacola treaty provided for a mutual alliance, and Spain contributed arms and ammunitions to the Creek’s war. Six years later, changes in the political and commercial climate persuaded the Creek Nation to sign the Treaty of New York with the newly formed United States on August 14, 1791. Though displeased, the Spanish governor conceded that he was powerless to alter the situation, as the Creeks were an independent nation and could treat with whom they pleased. In the treaty, the United States agreed to pay the Creeks for lands taken by Georgia citizens. In return, the Creeks offered friendship and accepted protection from the United States over Creek lands located with the American sphere of influence. The Creeks refused, despite U.S. objections, to relinquish Spanish protection over those Creek lands within the Spanish sphere. The Creeks also rebuffed the American offer to establish trade relations with the United States, preferring to maintain the services of the English. Article 2 of the treaty further illustrates the Creeks’ decision to maintain their external independence. In this article, the Creeks agreed not to negotiate with any individual, state, or citizen of a state. They did not, however, agree to refrain from treating with other foreign nations. Two years after the Treaty of New York, the Creeks, along with the Alibamon, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Talapuche nations, signed another treaty with Spain to protect their boundaries against American encroachment and to provide the tribes with certain necessities. In Article 19, the tribes agreed to maintain an offensive and defensive alliance among the Chickasaw, Creek,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

Choctaw, Talapuche, Alibamon, and Cherokee Nations. Mexico’s independence from Spain did not end the use of treaty making as a vehicle for settling disputes among the various tribes and between the provincial and national governments, especially along the southern border areas. Annual reports of the commissioner of Indian affairs in 1872 and 1874 refer to Mexico’s efforts to secure its borders by negotiating agreements with the Apache. DeMallie and Deloria list more than twenty treaties, an estimated one-third of the treaties Mexico negotiated from 1821 to 1850, with Indian nations currently found within the U.S. boundaries. Even Russia, which settled only briefly in the continental United States, signed a treaty in 1817 with the Pomo Indians, located north of present-day San Francisco.

Early American Treaties with the Indian Nations As the outbreak of war appeared imminent, England and the new revolutionary government engaged in a flurry of negotiations with the Indian nations, each seeking military allies or, at minimum, Indian neutrality in the war. Not surprisingly, the new American government, operating under the Articles of Confederation, adopted the English procedure of negotiating with the Indian nations through treaties. This tradition, in fact, directly affected the colonies’ agreement over the treaty-making power in Article IX of the Articles of Confederation. Fearful that the new Congress would negotiate unfavorable treaties concerning land cessions, southern representatives to the Constitutional Convention insisted that all treaties required the support of nine states for approval. The new government concluded its first treaty in 1778, with the Delaware Nation. Differing little in subject and tone from treaties later concluded with European nations, the United States promised peace and friendship with the Delaware Nation, established trade between the two nations, and instituted a procedure for punishing transgressors. Of particular interest was Article 6, which guaranteed that, if the Delaware, in concert with other tribes, wished to form a state within the Union, the Delaware would be appointed leaders of the congressional delegation. Of further importance was the treaty’s forthright response to British charges that the United States planned to seize Indian lands illegally and violate its promises to honor prior treaties:

www.abc-clio.com

53

Whereas, the enemies of the United States have endeavored by every artifice in their power, to possess the Indians . . . with an opinion, that it is the design of the states (to) take possession of their country; to obviate such false suggestions, the United States do engage or guarantee to the aforesaid nations of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights, in the most fullest and ample manner, as it hath been bounded by former treaties. (Article Six 1975, 3) The success of the United States in negotiating with the Delaware was significant, for most eastern tribes, having found their dealings with the colonists less than honorable, aligned with the British. The Americans did succeed in obtaining the support of the Oneida and the Tuscarora Nations—an alliance that effectively split the Iroquois Confederacy and at least reduced, if not ensured, the time frame to American victory. By the late 1780s, Congress had recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation as a governing document. In 1789, the states ratified the Constitution, establishing a stronger central government with control over a federal system. Article II, Section 2, clause 2 granted to the president “[the] Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” On May 25, 1789, President George Washington directed Secretary of War Henry Knox to deliver two treaties to the Senate for its first action of advice and consent. President of the Senate John Adams received in Knox’s package two treaties that the Continental Congress had negotiated with Indian nations at Fort Harmar. On June 12, the Senate selected a three-member committee to consider these treaties. On September 8, the Senate Executive Journals noted that the Senate had adopted a resolution advising the president “to execute and enjoin an observance of” one of the two treaties, the treaty with the Wyandot and other Indian nations. After receiving the Senate’s approval, President Washington sent another communication to the Senate, asking the Senate to clarify whether Indian treaties required Senate approval: The treaties with certain Indian Nations, which were laid before you with my message of the 25th of May last, suggested two questions to my mind, viz: 1st, Whether those treaties were to be considered as perfected, and, consequently as obligatory, without being ratified. If

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

54

Governments and Treaty Making

not, then 2ndly, whether both, or either, and which of them, ought to be ratified? (Ralston 1920, 15) The Senate assigned the question to another three-member committee. The following day, the committee reported its conclusion that Indian treaties did not require Senate approval. The full Senate rejected the recommendation and responded to Washington that the Constitution required Senate ratification of all treaties negotiated with Indians. For the next three years, representatives and government officials remained at odds over the Constitution’s intent regarding the extent and form of the Senate’s advice prior and during the negotiation process. To Washington’s dismay, during the first few years the Senators took it upon themselves to play an integral role in the negotiation process. In 1794, the Senate issued its first refusal to consent to a treaty transmitted from the executive branch. This “first” also involved an Indian treaty—a treaty that the executive branch had concluded with the Illinois and Wabash nations without advance Senate involvement. It is unclear whether the Senate’s refusal to consent to the treaty arose from their objections to the treaty’s terms or from their lack of prior involvement. The United States adopted similar procedures whether negotiating with European powers or the Indian nations. International law requires that a valid treaty must be negotiated on the authority of the highest sovereign. Every nation has developed its own diplomatic procedures and documentation to assure the negotiation authority of other parties. In 1786, Congress authorized the War Department to manage Indian relations. The executive branch continued this procedure under the new Constitution, placing the Indian Office (the precursor of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) under the authority of the War Department. From 1824 until the creation of the Department of the Interior in 1849, the Department of War regulated Congress’s relationship with the Indian nations. Once the president or Congress requested the negotiation of a treaty and Congress appropriated the necessary funds, the secretary of war issued a document or commission to the negotiators outlining the government’s objectives for the treaty. Whether the government’s interest lay in land cessions, trade, alliances, or other matters, these documents provided general instructions concerning the promises made and the funding allowed.

www.abc-clio.com

Over time, the treaties concluded by the United States with the Indian nations became increasingly formal and legalistic, using the style and form and covering the subject matter common to all treaties of the time. Indian treaties, written in the same lofty language, were divided into preamble, body, and salutation. The treaty concluded between the United States and the Creek Nation in 1790 at New York opens with the following preamble: The parties being desirous of establishing permanent peace and friendship between the United States and the said Creek Nation, and the citizens and members thereof, and to remove the causes of war by ascertaining their limits, and making other necessary, just and friendly arrangements: the President of the United States, Secretary for the Department of War, whom he hath constituted with full powers for these purposes, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States and the Creek Nation, by the undersigned kings, chiefs and warriors, representing the said nation, have agreed to the following articles: . . . The salutation reads, “In witness of all and whole Creek nation, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, in the City of New York, with the United States, this seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety,” after which each participant affixed his signature. In keeping with Grotius’s (1925) discussion of international treaties, Indian treaties dealt with the fixing of boundaries (Treaty of January 21, 1785; Treaty of November 28, 1785; Treaty of August 19, 1825), the promise of mutual assistance (Treaty of January 9, 1789; Treaty of July 22, 1814), the exchange of prisoners and hostages (Treaty of October 22, 1784; Treaty of January 21, 1785; Treaty of November 28, 1785), and the establishment of garrisons and forts (Treaty of June 16, 1802; Treaty of November 10, 1808). Also included as subjects of negotiations, were provisions on passports (Treaty of July 2, 1791; Treaty of August 7, 1790), extradition (Treaty of July 2, 1791; Treaty of March 12, 1858; Treaty of June 19, 1859), white immigration onto Indian lands (Treaty of May 24, 1835; Treaty of March 6, 1861), and the right to declare war and conclude treaties with third powers (Treaty of August 24, 1835; Treaty of May 26, 1837).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

The new government’s decision to entrust the State Department to maintain copies of Indian treaties among their files of other international agreements further illustrates that the United States regarded Indian treaties as international agreements. Listed first in State Department records is a treaty in 1722 between the Six Nations and New York and Pennsylvania. In 1837, the State Department commissioned Samuel D. Langtree and John Louis O’Sullivan to publish the Indian treaties concluded between 1789 and 1813. Further evidence exists that, in addition to using international treaty standards of procedure, form, and tone in negotiating Indian treaties, the United States regarded Indian treaties as having an international impact on its domestic and foreign policy decisions. As noted above, Indian treaties determined the structure of treaty making under the Articles of Confederation. Indian treaties constituted the first set of treaties delivered to the Senate and rejected by the Senate under the new Constitution. The precedent for obtaining Indian lands through treaties ultimately allayed concerns that President Thomas Jefferson had overstepped his executive authority in concluding a treaty with France for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The necessity to subject Indian treaties to the same international legal standards as all treaties also affected U.S. foreign policy decisions. In 1795, England expressed concern to the United States that an American treaty signed that year with several Indian nations had abrogated part of the Jay Treaty of 1794 negotiated between England and the United States the previous year. The Treaty of Peace ending the American war of independence had left several outstanding issues. Until France’s declaration of war on England in 1792, another war appeared imminent between England and the United States. Now anxious to neutralize American involvement in this war, England agreed to sign the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, referred to as the Jay Treaty, with the United States in November 1794. This treaty resolved several key conflicts between the two nations by creating a joint commission to settle boundary disputes, reestablishing American trade with the West Indies, providing for British withdrawal from forts in the Old Northwest, and reaffirming the rights of Indian nations vis-à-vis the new American boundary. The Indian nations had fought alongside the British in the war as their equals and were incensed

www.abc-clio.com

55

at their exclusion from the Treaty of Peace negotiations. Joseph Brandt, chief of the Mohawk, in particular voiced his opposition to the treaty, pointing out that King George had given his personal guarantee that the British would protect the Mohawks’ aboriginal lands in New York State and Canada. Anxious to reduce their allies’ concerns, in Article 3 of the Jay Treaty the British negotiated an agreement that the Indian nations could freely travel and trade goods across the new border. The following year, the U.S. government concluded a treaty with several Indian nations, including, among others, the Wyandot, the Miami, the Delaware, the Shawnee, and the Chippewa. During this period, the relations that traders established with the Indian nations often determined and symbolized the tribes’ relationship with Americans. Given that the United States possessed no jurisdiction over Indian lands, the U.S. government had no control over traders admitted onto Indian lands. In an effort to control traders and commerce with Indian nations, the government included, as a point of negotiation with tribes, an article that requested tribes to admit only those traders who had obtained the proper license from the U.S. government. Upon hearing of this treaty stipulation, Great Britain expressed concern that this provision violated Article 3 of the Jay Treaty. The following year, the United States agreed to negotiate an explanatory note, a document recognized under international law as having the status of a binding treaty, reaffirming the stipulations of the Jay Treaty by stating that the treaty concluded with the tribes at Greenville, August 3, 1795, “can not be understood to derogate in any manner from the rights of free intercourse and commerce, secured by the third article . . .” (Respecting the Liberty 1794). The U.S. recognition of the international legitimacy of the treaties concluded between the Indian nations and other European powers is further illustrated in Article 6 of the 1803 treaty concluded between the United States and France for the Louisiana Cession: The United States promise to execute such treaties and articles as may have been agreed between Spain and the tribes and nations of Indians until by mutual consent of the United States and the said tribes or nations other suitable articles shall have been agreed upon. (Treaty with France 1803)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

56

Governments and Treaty Making

The Treaty of Peace of 1776, the Jay Treaty of 1794, and the Explanatory Note of 1796 did not end the competition and suspicion between the United States and England. By 1812, war had again broken out between the two powers, and again both sides sought the alliances of the Indian nations. The great Shawnee chief Tecumseh clearly foresaw the danger that the United States posed to Indian people and worked tirelessly to create a confederacy of tribes from Canada to Florida to fight with the British. A brigadier general in the British army, Tecumseh expressed disgust upon hearing of Britain’s capitulation to the Americans two years later. At the peace negotiations concluding the war, England sought recognition from the United States of an independent Indian buffer state. In a treatise written before the negotiations, Nathaniel Atcheson laid out nine points on which Great Britain should negotiate the treaty, emphasizing that the Indian nations were “independent both of us and of the Americans” and that their independence should be secured. Three of the nine points dealt with the status and security of the Indian nations: a new boundary line for the Indian Territory; that the Americans not be allowed to erect forts, military posts, or other public property in Indian Territory; and that Great Britain guarantee the boundaries of the Indian state (Atcheson, 1814). For months, negotiations stalled over the Americans’ refusal to recognize an Indian buffer state. The British finally relented upon the agreement of the United States in Article 9 to restore tribal rights to the 1811 status quo. After ratification of the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812, both the United States and England negotiated new treaties with their former Indian enemies during the war, restoring recognition of tribal rights to their prewar status. The War of 1812 ended the Indian nations’ ability to serve as a master player in the international intrigues of the East. With the East in firm control, the United States turned its attention to the Mexico Gulf and Florida region, where General Andrew Jackson fought against the English, the Spanish, and their military allies, the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, for final control of the region. From the British, the United States had inherited the right to treat with and secure lands from the Indian nations of the Old Northwest. Over the next several decades, U.S. forces solidified their control of this area by negotiating with the tribes in groups, pairs, and individually. By the late 1820s, the public clamor, especially from the southern states, to move

www.abc-clio.com

all eastern tribes to lands west of the Mississippi had become an important political platform for presidential hopeful Andrew Jackson. A few of the southern states, such as Georgia, had passed state laws assuming jurisdictional control over tribally held lands. Now president, Jackson introduced legislation in Congress giving the tribes the choice to move west or stay in the South and submit to the state laws. The tribes and their supporters loudly protested passage of this removal bill, pointing out that the United States possessed no jurisdiction over the Indian nations and that such legislation violated previous treaties and laws recognizing Indian sovereignty and title to their lands. Well known among European powers as an American leader with little integrity in warfare and even less honor in upholding promises, Jackson had no use for the niceties of law, whether domestic or international. Jackson’s philosophy was based entirely on necessity; whatever was necessary to expand the glory of the American republic was just. Congress passed the removal bill by a mere five votes. The Cherokee Nation responded to the bill’s passage by filing an injunction before the U.S. Supreme Court as a foreign nation. As a foreign state, the tribe’s attorney, former U.S. attorney general William Wirt, argued that the State of Georgia possessed no authority to execute “certain laws [that] . . . go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society and to seize for the use of Georgia the lands of the nation which have been assured to them by the United States in solemn treaties . . .” (Cherokee 1831). The Cherokees, Wirt stated, had been sovereigns from time immemorial, “acknowledging no earthly superior.” The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case proved especially inconvenient for John Marshall. A political opponent of Andrew Jackson, Marshall fully realized that Jackson would ignore any Supreme Court decision that contravened his political agenda (Cherokee 1831). For a president to ignore a Supreme Court decision so early in the nation’s history would jeopardize the Court’s future role in U.S. politics, a role not well articulated by the constitutional authors. Wishing to avoid a showdown with Jackson, Marshall sought to have the case dismissed. By cleverly employing domestic law to answer questions of international law and manipulating the very meaning of treaties, Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had no standing to bring the case directly to the Supreme Court as a foreign nation. The

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

treaties signed between the Cherokee Nation and the United States, Marshall argued, had placed the Cherokees under the protection of the United States. Through this action, Marshall concluded, the Cherokees had given up their foreign status and had become “domestic, dependent nations.” In his dissent, Justice Smith Thompson refuted Marshall’s analysis that the Cherokees had placed themselves under U.S. protection. By comparing the sixth article of the Treaty of Hopewell with the Cherokees in 1785 with the twenty-seventh article of the U.S. treaty with England in 1794, Thompson argued that both provisions dealt with the extradition of wanted criminals from Cherokee and English territory, respectively. The necessity for the stipulation in both cases must be, because the process of one government and jurisdiction will not run into that of another; and separate and distinct jurisdiction . . . is what makes governments and nations foreign to each other in their political relations. (Cherokee 1831) The Cherokees refused to give up. The following year, Samuel Worcester, Elizur Butler, and two other missionaries deliberately broke a Georgia law requiring a state license to live on Indian lands. Georgia officials arrested the men, who were sentenced to four years in prison at hard labor. Once again, William Wirt appeared before the Supreme Court to argue the inapplicability of Georgia’s laws over Cherokee lands. This time, Wirt based his case on the argument that the Constitution granted “the regulation of intercourse with the Indians” exclusively to the federal government. The government, Wirt argued, exercised this power through treaties and congressional acts. Any attempts by states to alter or void federal law violated the Constitution. Marshall agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the Georgia laws to be an unconstitutional interference with the treaties concluded between the United States and the Cherokees. To support his ruling, Marshall discussed the proper legal interpretation that should be accorded to Indian treaties. In analyzing the first negotiated treaty of the United States with the Delaware Nation, Marshall found that “[in] its language and in its provisions, [the treaty] is formed, as near as may be, on the model of treaties between the crowned heads of Europe.” The treaties concluded by the United States with the Indian tribes in general, as Marshall pointed out, arose from

www.abc-clio.com

57

the “same necessity and on the same principle” as those treaties concluded with France (Cherokee 1831). The words treaty and nation are words of our own language, selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having each a definite and well-understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to the other nations of the earth; they are applied to all in the same sense. (Worcester 1832) In Cherokee Nation, Marshall had used Indian treaties in part to prove that Indian nations were not foreign states. In Worcester, he had applied international legal principles to show how Cherokee treaties proved Cherokee sovereignty and independence. Within two years, Marshall had cleverly manipulated and interpreted the role and status of Indian treaties to serve conflicting purposes—a masterful feat not lost on future generations of American judges. The Worcester victory provided the tribes with no practical protection. Hoping to find a new life free of white interference, many tribes negotiated treaties with the United States to move their people west. The U.S. military forcibly “assisted” those individuals and groups who were too reluctant or too slow. The removal of the eastern tribes slowed the government’s hunger for tribal lands only briefly. Looking for new lands, the United States had attempted on more than one occasion to purchase Texas from Mexico. In 1836, Texas declared her independence from Mexico. During her nine years as an independent republic, Texas concluded twelve treaties with various indigenous tribes, including the indigenous Tonkawa, Comanche, Wichita, and Apache, as well as with immigrant bands from the Cherokee, Delaware, and Shawnee nations, fleeing white encroachment of their aboriginal lands. Congress annexed Texas in 1845 and a year later added the Oregon Territory. Victory in the Mexican War added the entire Southwest in 1848. The discovery of gold in California (1849) and Colorado (1858) brought waves of settlers across tribal lands in the West. Five years later, the Gadsden Purchase completed the present exterior boundaries of the United States. In ten short years, the country’s population increased by 32 percent and its size by 70 percent. Between 1830 and 1860, eight states and five territories were added to the Union. To open up this newly acquired territory to settlement, the government

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

58

Governments and Treaty Making

embarked on a negotiating frenzy with tribes, securing 174 million acres of land in fifty-three treaties with tribes between 1853 and 1857. For a period, the Civil War interrupted the western exodus as the North fought to preserve the Union. After declaring its independence from the United States, the Confederacy quickly entered into treaty negotiations with the Indian nations in the important border regions. The politics between the Union and the Confederacy proved especially disastrous among the Indian nations referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Creek, and the Seminole. In each of these tribes, a handful of tribal citizens, primarily the wealthier mixed bloods, had adopted the southern agricultural system, which required slave labor in order to be economically efficient. Casting their lot with the Confederacy, these groups seceded from their own tribal nations and established rebel governments. To solidify their relationship, especially their military and economic contributions, the Confederacy signed approximately nine treaties with these rebel governments and several western tribes. The Confederate treaties were quite liberal in the Confederacy’s recognition of tribal authority, land, and resources. In return, the rebel groups accepted the protection of the Confederacy but retained the authority to make treaties with other Indian nations. In the meantime, the de jure tribal governments, arguing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be upheld), continued to support and fight for the Union, frequently in battles against their own people. After the war, the United States demanded that the Five Civilized Tribes renegotiate their treaties with the federal government. The resulting treaties, supposedly in retaliation for the tribes’ treason, were actually negotiated with the southern tribal representatives, who were far more willing to grant away tribal rights and lands than were those who had fought and died for the Union. Until the Civil War, treaty negotiations with individual tribes often followed a typical cycle. The earliest treaties dealt with peace, friendship, alliances, and land cessions. As immigrants flooded to new western frontiers that encroached on tribal lands, hostilities multiplied. To avoid costly battles, the American government pressured tribes to cede increasingly large areas of land—cessions containing lands often already sold to settlers by eastern speculators. As America’s strength grew and the powers of tribes declined, treaty commissioners demanded

www.abc-clio.com

changes in traditional negotiation and approval procedures, including prohibiting the participation of Native women and demanding that tribal councils forgo their time-consuming consensus building and provide immediate, on-site decisions. Commissioners were also not above appointing any group of Indians as tribal chiefs and investing them with the authority—that is, coercing them with alcohol— to sign treaties. Although treaties signed under duress, or without the sovereign’s authority, are illegal, on only a few occasions did Congress refuse to ratify the Indian treaties placed before them. Living under corrupt agents and with little access to food, many tribes increasingly were forced to sign successive treaties that ceded more of their lands, required their children to attend manual labor schools, and allotted communally held lands to individual owners. In still other instances, tribes negotiated treaties in good faith with U.S. representatives, only to find later that Congress had refused to ratify them or had altered their provisions without tribal approval. The most egregious example involved more than twenty treaties that the California tribes had negotiated with the federal Treaty Commission in 1851. The gold rush had started, and the government directed the Treaty Commission to treat with the Indians to secure title and access to their lands. Convinced that the remaining lands the tribes had reserved for their use also contain gold, the California representatives prevailed upon their colleagues to leave the treaties unratified. For the next fifty years, the physical location of these documents, now referred to as the “lost treaties,” was unknown. Without proof of the areas they had ceded and those they had retained as reservation lands, the tribes (except for those in the northern part of the state) were left dependent upon the government to provide them with a land base.

The End of Treaty Making Initially responsible for enforcing the treatyestablished boundaries between Indian and white lands, the military’s role changed from defending tribal lands from the encroachment of white settlers to suppressing tribes and often evicting them from their own lands. As the western wars escalated, President Ulysses S. Grant in 1867 appointed the Peace Commission to study the situation. The commission reported that the western hostilities primarily derived from the government’s refusal to keep its treaty commitments and from its repeated demands for more tribal land cessions. Other government offi-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

cials, such as Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely Parker, a Seneca, pointed to the treaty process as the root of the problem, arguing that Congress should stop making treaties with the tribes and pass legislation to civilize them and open their lands to settlement. Except for a few remaining Plains and Southwest tribal groups, governmental policies and actions had subdued and weakened most tribes, lending some credence to the argument that tribes no longer possessed the political power to negotiate treaties as equals. Justice Department officials countered vigorously that treaty making remained an effective tool for negotiating with tribes and maintained that ending treaty making without tribal consent was both illegal and dishonorable. Whether tribes retained the capacity to negotiate treaties was of less concern to most policymakers than was the potential control that outside interests stood to gain from a change in the treaty-making policy. Under the current system, the executive branch took the lead in negotiating treaties, leaving the Senate only with the authority to confirm or refuse the treaty. The House of Representatives, jealous of the Senate’s role, was left to appropriate funds for decisions into which they had had little input. Which tribes were contacted, which lands were purchased, and which resources were acquired led to decisions that had immeasurable impact on the representatives’ constituents and the economic fortunes of their districts. Once again, Indian tribes became unwitting pawns in a competitive power play among the various branches of government and officials representing competing railroad, mining, livestock, and land speculation interests, among others. In 1871, the House of Representatives attached the following rider to an appropriations bill: “. . . [T]hat hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty” (16 Stat. 566). Senator Eugene Casserly of California eloquently pinpointed the reason for the rider’s passage: I know what the misfortune of the tribes is. Their misfortune is not that they are red men; not that they are semi-civilized, not that they are a dwindling race, not that they are a weak race. Their misfortune is that they hold great bodies of rich lands, which have aroused the cupidity of powerful corporations and of

www.abc-clio.com

59

powerful individuals . . . I greatly fear that the adoption of this provision to discontinue treaty making is the beginning of the end in respect to Indian lands. It is the first step in a great scheme of spoliation, in which the Indians will be plundered, corporations and individuals enriched, and the American name dishonored in history. (McNickle 1973, 208) The amendment in 1871 did not end the federal government’s negotiations with tribes for lands and other matters. In the place of treaties, the government negotiated agreements, documents that were similar to treaties in content and effect but required the approval of both congressional houses before the president’s signature. By the close of the nineteenth century, the United States had negotiated more than five hundred ratified and nonratified treaties with various Indian nations. The end of treaty making allowed the government new freedom to legislate and establish policies and programs designed to educate and assimilate Indian people into the dominant society. Supportive of the rider and eagerly waiting in the wings to assist the government in their endeavors were the eastern reformers, philanthropists, and churches. In 1874, Congress passed a bill requiring tribal members to perform “useful labor” in return for their annuities, even though annuities represented payments for lands already ceded. The following year, in a prelude to the Dawes Act, individual Indians were encouraged to obtain land under the Homestead Act. In 1879, Congress instituted the rudiments of an Indian educational system with the establishment of the Carlisle Indian School, whose intentions were cogently summarized by the school’s director in testimony before Congress: “We accept the watchword, let us by patient effort kill the Indian in him and save the man” (Gates 1885, 131). As traditional tribal society broke down with the education of the young, the rise in power of the Indian agent, and the teaching of Christianity, the government increasingly supplanted Native practices with the Anglo system. Congress authorized Indian police forces and an Indian court of appeals. In 1886, through the passage of the Seven Major Crimes Act, the federal government assumed jurisdiction of major crimes committed by Indians. A year later, Congress passed the most assimilative piece of legislation to date, the Land in Severalty Act, or the Dawes Act, as it became known. Far surpassing any previous infringement on tribal life, the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

60

Governments and Treaty Making

Dawes Act provided for the allotment of reservation lands among tribal members, with individuals receiving either 40 acres of farmland or 160 acres of grazing land. Land left after the allotment process was sold to white settlers as surplus. Within less than 20 years, Congress had moved from treating with the tribes as national entities and acknowledging their rights to their land and internal sovereignty to restructuring the tribes’ internal affairs and attempting to dissolve their reservations. Tribes were not consulted about these governmental changes and policies, and many leaders protested and lobbied strongly against their imposition. Eventually, some tribes took their complaints to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to determine on what authority the federal government justified its assumption of such widespread authority over a sovereign people. The question was not easily answered. The U.S. Constitution clearly established the federal government as a government of enumerated powers, meaning that the federal government could exercise only those powers granted by the Constitution. Heretofore, the federal government had regulated its relationships with the Indian nations primarily through the treaty process, which affirmed that each sovereign possessed exclusive authority to make and enforce its own laws in its own land. The treaties negotiated between the U.S. government and the tribes dealt with national issues of trade, land, and military alliances. With few exceptions, tribes had not given the United States the authority to enter their lands or to enforce their laws. When tribes had delegated authority to the United States, it was to improve the lives of their community. For example, Indian governments in Indian Territory had for years protested to the surrounding governments that the latter’s failure to control lawlessness had caused the problem to spill into tribal lands. Tribal governments had neither the resources nor the inclination to handle what they perceived as an outside problem. Eventually, tribes gave the United States the authority to enter tribal lands in pursuit of these criminals, a fact that the courts later used to justify U.S. authority over Indian lands. For the federal government to claim individual control over Indian people would require the courts to “domesticize” the previously international legal principles that had regulated the treaty relationship between the United States and the various tribes. But, as John Marshall had illustrated, a little judicial ingenuity, creativity, and manipulations could pro-

www.abc-clio.com

vide the government with virtually any legal angle necessary. The first major challenge to the U.S. assumption of authority came in the 1886 U.S. v. Kagama decision (Kagama 1886). The previous year, Congress had tacked the Seven Major Crimes Act onto an appropriations bill. The legislation provided the federal government with the authority to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indian individuals who had committed one of seven major crimes on Indian lands. Until then, tribes had handled violations of their laws according to their own codes and processes. On what basis could the federal government claim to have this authority? Tribes had not delegated this specific authority to the federal government in any of their treaties. The government spuriously claimed that Congress’s authority to pass the Major Crimes Act fell naturally under its authority to regulate commerce with the tribes. The commerce clause, Justice Samuel F. Miller ruled, was not the source of the government’s authority. The government had recognized the tribes as semi-independent, “not as States, not as nations, but as separate people, with power of regulating their internal social relations and thus not brought into the laws of the Union or of the States within whose limits they resided,” Miller acknowledged; but Congress had now decided to govern the tribes through federal legislation (Kagama 1886, 381–382). The tribes’ dependent condition warranted this change in procedure, Miller asserted. Admitting that the actions of the federal government had weakened the tribes, they were, nonetheless, now wards of the nation, and the United States had a responsibility to care for its wards. In a masterful and convoluted reinterpretation of treaty law, Miller reasoned that the source of U.S. authority to care for the tribes derived from the very treaties the tribes had negotiated with the United States. The United States had offered its protection to tribes in their treaties. Legislation such as the Major Crimes Act fulfilled this promise of protection. To conclude that Indian treaties, which tribes had negotiated as protection against the federal government and unwanted governmental incursions, had now become the ultimate source of the government’s authority over tribes, has to be one of the most tortuous reinterpretations of law yet found in American history. Marshall had stressed in Worcester that Indian treaties represented the government’s acknowledgement and agreement to protect tribal self-government; they did not imply the destruction

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

of the protected. After the Kagama decision, the protections that tribes thought they had negotiated to preserve were nonexistent. In 1903, in the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock decision, the Supreme Court indicated the extent to which the government was prepared to divest tribes of their guaranteed treaty provisions (Lone Wolf 1903). Article 12 of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge stipulated that Congress could not dispose of certain reservation lands without the consent of three-fourths of the adult males. Unable to secure the necessary votes, the government took the land and sold it. Lone Wolf, on behalf of himself and other members of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes, charged the government with disposing of tribal property in violation of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge and the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In an unbelievable decision, the Court reasoned that the tribes had misconstrued their treaty and had overlooked their dependent status and the government’s role as their guardian. To hold Congress to the treaty would limit the government’s authority to care for and protect the Indians. The Court conceded that previous courts had described tribal land rights as sacred as fee simple, but these cases had involved protecting tribal lands from the states and individuals. The treaties could not constrain the federal government because of the federal government’s responsibility to care for its wards. Citing an earlier case, the Court ruled that the federal government was limited only by those “. . . considerations of justice as would control a Christian people in their treatment of an ignorant and dependent race” (Beecher 1877). Within less than a hundred years, the U.S. courts had legally manipulated or “domesticized” international legal principles that recognized and protected international independence, sovereignty, and treaties into domestic sources of authority that allowed the federal government unlimited control over Indian people.

Indian Treaties in the Twentieth Century The United States closed the nineteenth century having abrogated treaties, forcibly taken Indian lands and lives, and destroyed tribal cultures through brute force and legal manipulations. Indian communities embarked on the twentieth century greatly diminished in numbers, land, and resources and having experienced one hundred years of war, dis-

www.abc-clio.com

61

eases, famine, and cultural genocide. Against all odds, they had survived, bringing into the century an understanding of their identities, their nationhood, and the values their ancestors had fought to protect. Over the next hundred years, the U.S. government continued its unrelenting attempt to convince indigenous peoples to forgo their cultures, wisdom, and communal identities by embracing and disappearing into the American maelstrom. By doing so, Indian people would become materially and socially self-sufficient, as had the millions of immigrants who had accepted American ideals. As had their ancestors before them, Indian people in large measure refused. The general U.S. population and its public officials possessed little comprehension and even less patience for this refusal, imposing assimilationist and terminationist policies on Indian people in various forms without their consent throughout the twentieth century. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the treaty process had managed the relationships of the United States with the Indian nations. In the twentieth century, the very existence of Indian treaties provided an unbreachable psychological, legal, symbolic, and historical link between the United States and its indigenous peoples, between the past and the future, and between the legal and truly moral. As the preceding discussion illustrated, Congress and the courts can and have legally reinterpreted, misinterpreted, and ignored Indian treaty rights and histories to meet broader domestic policies and objectives. American constitutional law is replete with Supreme Court decisions, such as Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, U.S v. Kagama, and Lone Wolf, that deftly manipulated the existence, status, and protections afforded by treaties to protect Indian nations and individuals. As discussed previously, tribes, especially in later years, were often at a considerable disadvantage during the treaty negotiation process. Federal negotiators either purposefully or ignorantly negotiated binding agreements with individuals not authorized to represent the tribe, at times resorting to bribery or to intoxicating pliant tribal members as “chiefs.” Because agreements were written in English, tribes were often totally dependent upon the facility and the honor of the individual translator. In some instances, government officials threatened to withhold rations or annuities owed by earlier treaties until the tribe agreed to the provisions of a new treaty. Other tribal leaders found

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

62

Governments and Treaty Making

themselves with the choice of agreeing to a treaty or facing the threat of war or starvation. In other instances, tribes had negotiated and upheld their agreements in good faith, only to find years later that the Senate had struck out provisions, added new ones, or refused to ratify the treaty and compensate the tribe for their land cessions. In at least thirteen cases, when notified that Congress had altered the treaty, tribes rejected it upon its return for approval. To assist in adjudicating a particularly complex legal area, the courts frequently develop a series of relevant principles or tests to guide judicial analysis. To compensate for these inequalities in the negotiation process and for the lack of precise language, and to ensure a balanced interpretation of the rights at issue, the Supreme Court has established several principles or canons of construction for use in adjudicating Indian treaty issues. The canons include these principles: that ambiguities in treaties must be resolved in favor of the tribes; that Indian treaties must be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them; that Indian treaties must be construed liberally in favor of the Indians; and that reserved rights must be explicitly extinguished by later treaties or congressional action. The following cases exemplify these standards: Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 367 (1930); DeCoteau v. District Court, 420 U.S. 425, 447 (1975); Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976); Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 10 (1899); U.S. v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 116 (1938); Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 631 (1970); Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 684–685 (1942); Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 690 (1979); and County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 247 (1985). Each tribe, tribal history, and negotiated treaty is unique, the Supreme Court emphasized in the Minnesota v. Mille Lacs decision (Minnesota 1999). The proper interpretation of a particular treaty requires an in-depth historical investigation of the era in which the tribe negotiated the treaty, including but not limited to an examination of government policy, archival records of congressional debates and treaty negotiations, and tribal oral and written histories. Not surprisingly, a review of the Court’s application of the canons of construction in Indian treaty cases over the last half century or so reveals a rather uneven and judicious use of the canons, depending upon the importance of the issue in question. During the 1970s, a time of stated congressional policy to

www.abc-clio.com

restore tribal sovereignty and tribal governmental powers, several cases pointed to tribal treaties as proof of inherent tribal powers. In three important cases decided between 1959 and 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Navajo sovereignty based on the protections inherent in their 1868 treaty with the United States. In the Williams v. Lee case in 1959, the Court held that the Navajo treaty of 1868 protected the Navajos’ authority to exercise control over internal issues—in this instance, the tribal courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s collection of a debt from an Indian on the reservation (Williams 1959). In the Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission case, the treaty of 1868 also prevented the State of Arizona from collecting state taxes from non-Indians whose businesses lay within reservation boundaries (Warren 1965). In the McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission case of 1973, noting that Indian sovereignty provided “a backdrop” against which to interpret Indian treaties and federal policies, the Court ruled that Arizona could not collect state taxes from Indians whose “income was derived from reservation sources” (McClanahan 1973). The Supreme Court also invoked the existence and protection of Indian treaties in two of its most resounding victories for tribal sovereignty. In 1974, in Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs policy of providing special preference for Indians did not constitute racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (Morton 1974). Federal laws regarding Indians were passed to fulfill the government’s unique political relationship with tribes. This relationship, the Court emphasized, was illustrated in part by its “history of treaties” with tribes. Four years later, in United States v. Wheeler, the Supreme Court considered whether the U.S. Constitution’s bar against double jeopardy precluded a Navajo man’s trial in federal court on a charge arising out of the same offense for which the Navajo tribal court had convicted him (U.S. 1978). The federal courts were not prohibited from trying the individual, the Court concluded. The Navajo had not given up their “jurisdiction to charge, try, and punish members of the Tribe for violations of tribal law” in either their 1849 or their 1868 treaty with the United States. Therefore, the man had broken the laws of two sovereigns and could be tried by both sovereigns. The federal court’s willingness to employ its canons of construction in Indian treaty cases has

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

proven essential in protecting tribal hunting and fishing rights. Among many tribes, hunting and fishing represented far more than economic subsistence. Hunting and fishing symbolized and taught cultural values and one’s responsibilities and orientation to one’s surroundings. Over time, outside developments and populations crowded out many tribal peoples, preventing them from pursuing the hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by their ancestors. In the 1960s through the early 1990s, tribal peoples moved to reclaim these treaty rights, first through fish-ins and protests and later through court battles. Non-Indian fishing interests, representing the sport and commercial industries, responded to the tribal actions with harassment, violence, and lobbying efforts. In general, courts from the Northwest to the Great Lakes have concluded that tribal ancestral leaders intended to preserve tribal fishing and hunting rights for their descendants in the treaties they negotiated with the United States more than a hundred years ago. In the United States v. Michigan case of 1979, for example, Judge Joel Fox ruled that Michigan tribes preserved their right to fish in Lake Michigan in their treaties of 1836 and 1855 (U.S. 1981). Tribes in Wisconsin and Minnesota won similar lawsuits based on interpretation of historic treaties (Menominee 1968; Minnesota 1999). In a series of northwest fishing cases involving the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854 (Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.), the courts interpreted “The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory . . .” to allow treaty tribes with 50 percent of the allowable salmon catch (Washington 1979). The courts have failed to apply their canons of construction consistently when interpreting Indian treaty provisions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of these cases have occurred when such applications would result in Indian ownership of former lands now needed for economic development and the finding that tribes retained jurisdiction to handle non-Indian criminal activities within tribal lands. For example, in the Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation case of 1960, the Supreme Court, by ignoring its own canons of construction and reinterpreting history, concluded that three treaties negotiated in the 1700s to protect tribal lands conveniently did not include Tuscarora lands. The ruling allowed for the submersion of traditional Tuscarora lands beneath a lucrative energy project. In a

www.abc-clio.com

63

strongly worded dissent to the decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “I regret that this Court is to be that governmental agency that breaks faith with this dependent people. Great nations, like great men, should keep their word” (Federal Power Commission 1960). This ruling was also relevant in the DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District case (DeCoteau 1975). Two weeks before the Supreme Court handed down the Wheeler decision, which emphasized that tribes possessed inherent sovereign powers predating those of the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in the Oliphant case that tribes did not possess the authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians (Oliphant 1978). The case arose from the Suquamish tribal court’s conviction of two men for disturbing the peace during Chief Seattle days. The convictions were invalid, the men argued, as the Suquamish possessed no jurisdiction over nonIndians. In line with previous case law and canons of construction, the Court should have determined whether the Suquamish had forfeited their rights in treaties to handle criminal matters within their own lands, or whether Congress had expressly removed such authority from the tribes. After a selected review of congressional legislation from 1834 to the present, the Court rationalized that Congress had intended to preempt the field. Previously, the Court had operated on the principle that tribes retained their inherent governing rights and rights to resources unless specifically removed or limited through treaties or by Congress. The new rule now read that tribes could not legislate on matters limited by treaties or statutes (old test) or in areas that conflicted with the overriding interest of the United States as the superior sovereign. Exactly what was considered to be in the “interest of the overriding sovereign” the Court did not say, beyond stating that the federal government had a responsibility to protect its (non-Indian) citizens. The 1981 Montana v. United States decision, like the Lone Wolf decision in 1903, illustrated the Supreme Court’s willingness to mangle previously established Indian law and tests. This case involved the right of the Crow Nation to regulate hunting and fishing rights within their reservation boundaries, in this instance the regulation of non-Indians on nonmember lands. As the Crow Nation’s attorney argued, without the right to control all hunting and fishing within reservation boundaries, it was impossible to establish and administer legitimate conservation measures. Furthermore, the Crow had

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

64

Governments and Treaty Making

never given up their authority to regulate any aspect of their reservation hunting and fishing rights, and no federal legislation had extinguished their right. The Crow Nation, the Court ruled, did not possess the right to regulate non-Indians fishing and hunting on non-Indian lands within the reservation boundaries. To support this tenuous claim, the justices relied on their interpretation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie (Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.) of 1851, finding that nowhere was it “suggested that Congress intended to grant authority to the Crow Tribe to regulate hunting and fishing by nonmembers on nonmember lands” (Montana 1981). The Court could only arrive at such an interpretation by completely ignoring its own tests that required Indian treaties to be interpreted as the tribes would have understood them (few people envisioned in 1851 the problem of whites fishing on Crow land), to contain an express extinguishment of authority, and to resolve any ambiguities in favor of the tribe. Despite periods of egregious failures and the courts’ tendency to interpret Indian treaty rights in line with the national political agenda and climate, the United States has refused to completely abandon the guarantees and promises that it negotiated as a young nation. Even after two hundred years of conflictual history, the United States legally regards Indian treaties as the supreme law of the land. As contracts between sovereigns, the supremacy clause of the Constitution governs the legal status of Indian treaties within U.S. law, mandating that Indian treaties possess the same effect and force of federal law and supersede state law. States did not—and still do not—possess the requisite sovereignty to enter into treaty relationships. Congress and the courts today recognize tribes as domestic dependent nations possessing a government-to-government relationship with the federal government—a status supported by the continuing viability of Indian treaties. The treaties and agreements negotiated by Indian nations with the United States will continue to play a critical role in the recognition of tribal sovereignty and in the protection of Indian lands and resources. Sharon O’Brien References and Further Reading “Act Ending Treaty Making,” March 3, 1871, U.S. Statutes at Large, 16: 566.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, vol. 1. 1832–1861. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. Article Six, Treaties between the United States and the Several Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. 1975. Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint. Atcheson, N. 1814. A Compressed View of the Points to be Discussed in Treating with the United States of America. London: Rie. Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517 (1877). Bodin, J., 1576. The Six Books of the Commonwealth. Abridged and translated by M. J. Tooley. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1955. Boyd, Julian P., ed. 1938. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1738–1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Caughey, John W. 1938. McGillivray of the Creeks. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District, 420 U.S. 425 (1975). Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie, eds. 1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vols. 1–2). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties with the American Indians: Including a Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club. Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 137–138 (1960). Gates, Merrill. 1885. “Land and Law as Agents in Educating Indians,” Journal of Social Science, 113–146, quote by Captain Henry Pratt. Grotius, H. 1925. In Livy, Book IV, in De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres (The Classics of International Law), J. Scott (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Holmes, Jack. 1969. Spanish Treaties with West Florida Indians, 1784–1802. Florida Historical Society, 48 (140–154). Liverani, Mario. 1980. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903). McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). McNickle, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism. London: Oxford University Press. Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968). Meyers, D. P. 1957. “The Names and Scopes of Treaties.” American Journal of International Law: 51, 579. Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. 526 U.S. 172 (1999). Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).

1-800-368-6868

Indian Treaties as International Agreements

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Ralston, Hayden. 1920. The Senate and Treaties, 1789–1817. New York: Macmillan. Respecting the Liberty to Pass and Repass the Borders and to Carry on Trade and Commerce. 1974. Explanatory Article to the 3rd Article of the Treaty of November 19, 1794. Toscano, M. 1966. The History of Treaties and International Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Treaty of October 22, 1784, with the Six Nations, 7 Stat. 15. Treaty of January 21, 1785, with the Wyandots and others, 7 Stat. 16. Treaty of November 28, 1785, 7 Stat. 18. Treaty of January 21, 1785, 7 Stat. 16. Treaty of November 28, 1785, 7 Stat. 18. Treaty of January 9, 1789, with Wyandot, 7 Stat. 28. Treaty of August 7, 1790, 7 Stat. 35. Treaty of July 2, 1791, 7 Stat. 39. Treaty of June 16, 1802, 7 Stat. 68. Treaty of November 10, 1808, 7 Stat. 107. Treaty of July 22, 1814, with Wyandot, 7 Stat. 118. Treaty of August 19, 1825, 7 Stat. 272.

www.abc-clio.com

65

Treaty of May 24, 1835, 7 Stat. 450. Treaty of August 24, 1835, 7 Stat. 47. Treaty of May 26, 1837, 7 Stat. 533. Treaty of March 12, 1858, 12 Stat. 997. Treaty of June 19, 1859, 12 Stat. 1037. Treaty of March 6, 1861, 12 Stat. 1171. Treaty with France for the Cession of Louisiana, April 30, 1803, 8 Stat. 200, TS 86. U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). U.S. v. Michigan, 653 F. 2d277 (6th Cir. 1981). U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978). Van Loon, L.G. 1968. “Tawagonshi: Beginning of the Treaty Era.” Indian Historian, June, 22–26. Vattel, E. 1916. The Law of Nations, The Classics of International Law. Ed. J. Scott. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Vitoria, Francisco de. 1917. De Indis and De Jure Belli Reflectiones. Sec. 2, titles 6 & 7, “On the Indians and on the Law of War,” ed. Ernest Nys, trans. John Pawley Bate. New York: Oceana, 1964. Originally published Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685 (1965). Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Historical Periods

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

F

or the first fifty years of the republic, the United States, in its relations with the Indian tribes within its borders, focused its diplomatic and political energies on ending wars and establishing peaceful relations, controlling trade, asserting supremacy, extending its criminal and civil jurisdiction, and securing titles to the tribal lands. To achieve these goals, the United States entered into 159 treaties with Indian tribes between 1775 and 1829 (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 183–190). In doing so, it adopted the precedent established nearly two hundred years earlier by European sovereigns—that of negotiating treaties with Native polities. Under the prevailing international law, the land belonged to the sovereign in whose name it was discovered, but the Indian tribes that occupied the land had a perpetual right of use. This right could be extinguished only by abandonment, by a “just war,” or by purchase, the last being the most common means. These legal principles were enunciated by the Spanish jurist Francisco de Vitoria in 1532 and quickly became the law of nations. The treaties negotiated in the half century covered by this essay may be divided into three time periods: the united colonies during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and the United States under the Constitution. The last time period began with the United States engaged simultaneously in war and in diplomacy: war in the Northwest Territory, war and diplomacy in the South, and diplomacy in western New York, all resulting in peace treaties and land cessions. The same pattern was followed during the first three decades of the nineteenth century: wage war when necessary, treat with tribes as policy required, and, above all, secure land cessions either as war reparations or sales. The Northwest and the South remained foci of federal attention, and although western New York ceased to be a concern, it was replaced after 1803 with the lands west of the Mississippi River.

F

The United Colonies during the Revolutionary War From the first skirmish at Concord and Lexington in April 1775, Revolutionary War leaders were aware of the threats posed by the Indian tribes

within and on the borders of the thirteen colonies. In writing the Declaration of Independence, the committee of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman made special note of the tribal threats to colonial survival: “He [King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Although they grossly overstated the situation and expressed it in polemical terms, the Revolutionary War leaders had good reason for concern. At the end of the French and Indian War (1754–1763), a conflict in which most of the Indian tribes bordering the colonies had joined the French, England had established a policy restricting colonial settlement on Indian lands. The restrictions began in 1763, when the Crown issued a proclamation prohibiting settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. The superintendents for Indian affairs, John Stuart for the southern district and Sir William Johnson for the northern district, negotiated treaties with the various Indian tribes in 1767 and 1768 that established the boundary line envisioned in the Proclamation of 1763. That line ran from a few miles west of Fort Stanwix (in present-day Rome, New York) in the north to the Gulf coast of Florida. There were to be no colonial settlements west of this line. Additionally, the colonies were required to pay a series of taxes to simultaneously recoup the Crown’s costs incurred during the French and Indian War and maintain the Crown’s continuing protection against Indian attacks—a requirement to which the colonists vehemently and, in some instances violently, objected. It is not surprising that with few exceptions— most notably the Oneida and the Tuscarora, who supported the colonial cause—the Indian tribes west of the property line of 1768 were more sympathetic to the English than to the colonials. Some twenty years before, the English had represented the principal threat to their lands, and consequently an alliance with the French served their collective purpose. Now roles had changed. England appeared ready to protect Indian lands against American incursions.

69 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

70

Historical Periods

In this situation, the most the American officials could hope for was that the tribes would remain neutral and perhaps give some quiet support. To accomplish this goal, the Continental Congress entered into seven treaties or agreements with the following tribes: Six Nations, Delaware, and Shawnee (1775) Seneca, Cayuga, Nanticoke, and Conoy (1776) Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Malecite (1777) Winnebago (1778) Fox (1778) Delaware (1778) Cherokee (1779) (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 183; ASP 1832, 61:1, 1). Except for the Delaware and Cherokee treaties, these were informal agreements. Although the treaties in 1775 and 1776 differ in details, they have in common two elements: an explanation or justification of the rebellion against English authority and an appeal for tribal neutrality concerning the conflict between England and the colonies. Witness the speech of John Walker at the Treaty with the Six Nations, Delaware, Shawnee and Ottawa in October 1775. He pressed the tribes to remain neutral and to recognize that they and the United Colonies had a common destiny. Brothers we wish to Cultivate so strict a Friendship with you as that your Enemies shou’d be Considered as ours, and our Enemies as yours. . . . Brothers you have no doubt heard of the dispute between us and some of our Fathers evil Counsellors beyond the Great Water, in this dispute your Interest is Involved with ours so far as this, that in Case those People with whom we are Contending shou’d Subdue us, your Lands your Trade your Liberty and all that is dear to you must fall with us, for if they wou’d Distroy our flesh and Spill our Blood which is the same with theirs; what can you who are no way related to or Connected with them Expect? (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 55) The treaties with the Winnebago and the Fox, negotiated by Colonel George Rogers Clark in August 1778, tied the tribes to an “Alliance and Friendship with the United States of America and

www.abc-clio.com

[the tribes] Promised to be true and faithful Subjects” (ibid., 78, 79). The informality of treaties ended with the Delaware treaty in 1778. The treaty contains seven articles: a mutual forgiveness of all prior offenses; a guarantee of peace, friendship, and mutual assistance in cases of war; free passage of American troops across Delaware territory to attack English forts; and fair, impartial trials of Delawares and Americans who violated either nation’s laws. In addition, the United States agreed to appoint an agent to regulate trade; guaranteed Delaware territory in perpetuity; and, most interestingly, invited the Delaware Nation “to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress” (Kappler 1904, 3; 7 Stat. 13). The Cherokee treaty of 1779 contains all the provisions found in the Delaware treaty, with the exception of the statehood offer. Both treaties sought to ally the tribes to the United States in exchange for protections against the two major causes of enmity: dishonesty in trade and incursions on tribal lands.

The Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation Although written in 1777, the Articles of Confederation did not become officially operational until 1781. The sticking point was the insistence by the “landless” states—those without claims to western lands— that the “landed” states surrender their claims to the United States. Maryland, in particular, held up acceptance of the articles until Virginia agreed to surrender its claims to the Northwest Territory (the area north of the Ohio River, now the states of Ohio, Indian, Michigan, and Illinois) and what is now Kentucky. Other states with western claims were New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and North Carolina. Many of the claims overlapped, and all were for lands occupied by a large number of Indian tribes. Further complicating matters, the Articles of Confederation gave the United States sole control over war and peace but a vague mandate over Indian affairs. According to Article IX, the Continental Congress had the “sole and exclusive right and power of . . . regulating trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated. . . .” Because a number of states contained sizable areas occupied by Indian tribes, and because these states were anxious

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

to gain title to these lands, Article IX preserved the rights of states to negotiate with the Indian tribes, even at the risk of a general war and in contravention of the interests of the United States. But the states were not the only ones to be concerned about the stability of relations between the United States and the Indian tribes. Congress also faced that concern, which for them had its roots in the Treaty of Paris. Although the Treaty of Paris (September 3, 1783) ended the Revolutionary War and established the Mississippi River as the western boundary of the United States as far south as Florida, it made no provision for ending the wars with the Indian tribes that had joined the English, and therefore it furthered the possibility of unstable relations with those tribes. As a result, it was clear to the Continental Congress that peace treaties with the hostile tribes were a necessity. The crucial question was, What should be the terms of any peace treaties with the warring tribes? General George Washington provided an answer in a September 1783 letter written to James Duane, a delegate to the Continental Congress. Washington expressed concern that, in the absence of a quick resolution of hostilities, the Indian lands would “be over run with Land Jobbers, Speculators, and Monoplisers or even with scatter’d settlers” against the best interest of the United States. Normalizing relations with the tribes was imperative in order to prevent a situation that Washington believed to be “pregnant of disputes both with the Savages, and among ourselves . . .” (Prucha 1994, 1). To this end, Washington felt that the tribes should be informed of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, should be required to return all prisoners, should agree to a boundary line between the United States and themselves, and should grant to the United States a cession of land. Washington believed that the United States, for its part, should give assurances that it would “endeavour to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling” in Indian country as well as prevent dishonesty in trade. Washington concluded his letter by recommending that the lands ceded to the United States be purchased instead of seized by force (ibid.). “In a word there is nothing to be obtained by an Indian War but the Soil they live on and this can be had by purchase at less expence, and without that bloodshed . . .” (ibid., 2). In the winter of 1784, the Continental Congress completed its plans for ending hostilities with the Indian tribes still at war with the United States. To each tribe, the Congress would offer peace and

www.abc-clio.com

71

demand a cession of land as reparations for the costs of the war. The latter demand deviated radically from Washington’s recommendation to use the longestablished practice of purchasing land from Indian tribes or, more precisely, purchasing the Indian tribes’ right of use of the land. However, during the 1780s the United States faced an enormous debt and no means to repay it, as well as a vengeful, restive population intent on settling on the very lands under tribal control. From Congress’s point of view, the solution to these two problems was to exact retribution from the hostile Indian tribes via the relinquishment of land. Between 1784 and 1786, the United States negotiated the following six treaties with hostile tribes: Treaty at Fort Stanwix with the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, and Cayuga {1784) Treaty at Fort McIntosh with the Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa (1785) Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the Cherokee (1785) Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the Choctaw (1786) Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the Chickasaw (1786) Treaty at Fort Finney at the mouth of the Great Miami River with the Shawnee (1786) These treaties have five provisions in common. First, they required the tribes to surrender all prisoners and, in the case of the treaties at Fort Stanwix, Fort McIntosh, and Fort Finney, required the Indian tribes to provide tribal leaders as hostages to assure the prompt prisoner return. The three treaties at Hopewell added the return of property, including slaves. Second, the United States offered the Indian tribes peace and protection, which served to end hostilities and to provide the United States with sole control over the Indian tribes. Third, the United States defined the territorial boundaries of the Indian tribes, reserving land for Indians’ sole use and occupancy and taking ownership of the remainder. Fourth, the United States agreed that crimes committed by Americans on the tribal lands would be punished. Fifth, the tribes were to surrender to the United States any Indian who committed crimes against Americans. A number of treaties contained additional provisions specific to the situations between the United States and particular tribes. In the Fort Stanwix

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

72

Historical Periods

treaty, the United States guaranteed the lands of the Oneida and Tuscarora in appreciation of their loyalty to the colonial cause during the Revolutionary War. Similarly, the Fort McIntosh treaty restored tribal rights and property to those Delaware who had remained loyal to the United States. The Hopewell treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw contained guarantees of fair trade. Additionally, the Cherokee were offered the opportunity to send a representative to the Continental Congress. Upon hearing the terms announced by the congressional negotiators at the treaty conferences, the Indian negotiators were nearly unanimous in their opposition. They argued that they had not waged war against the United States without provocation, they had never sued for peace, and they were not empowered to grant the cessions demanded. However, they argued without success. These treaties were not made at arm’s length: the terms were dictated by the U.S. commissioners, and the tribes were told to accept them or face annihilation. The words of Richard Butler, who negotiated the treaty with the Shawnee at Fort Finney on behalf of the United States, illustrated the Continental Congress’s attitude: “The destruction of your women and children, or their future happiness, depends on your present choice. Peace or war is in your power; make your choice like men, and judge for yourselves” (Downes 1977, 297). Once the Indian delegates returned home and their tribal leaders and members heard the terms imposed, the Indian tribes rejected the terms. As the news of the high-handed way the Indian tribes at the treaty conferences had been treated, other Indian tribes, not party to the treaties but neighbors and allies of those who were, joined in opposition. The result was a loosely formed confederacy of Indian tribes in the Northwest Territory, the area north of the Ohio River to the Mississippi River and including Ohio, Indiana, southern Illinois, Michigan, and a small piece of western Pennsylvania. Although mindful of the rejection and opposition by the tribes, the Continental Congress proceeded to legislate for the area as though its title were clear and peace prevailed. In 1785, it passed “An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the Western Territory,” which provided for the survey of the lands between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes and their subsequent division into six-mile-square townships. The land was then to be sold to settlers. In 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a

www.abc-clio.com

system of governance for the Northwest Territory. The Continental Congress’s intention to survey and sell the land in the Northwest Territory, combined with the increasingly frequent incursions on Indian lands by hunters and squatters, made war inevitable. Within a year of the passage of the Land Ordinance of 1785, the United States began surveying and settling the Northwest Territory. To make the point that the United States considered the land its property and would countenance no interference with its settlement, General George Rogers Clark ordered attacks on Shawnee villages in 1786. Although the attacks resulted in the unremitting hostility of the Shawnee, they had a salutary effect from the American point of view: they served to separate those Indian tribes closer to American territory—Seneca, Delaware, Wyandot, and Chippewa— from those more remote and thus less subject to U.S. intimidation—Shawnee, Miami, Wea, Piankashaw, Potawatomi, and Kickapoo. Exacerbating the Continental Congress’s problems concerning Indian relations were the actions of some of the states with sizable Indian populations. Georgia held treaties with the Cherokee and the Creek in 1783 and again with the Creek in 1785 and 1786. Massachusetts negotiated its claims to what is now the western part of New York State with the Six Nations in 1788. But New York State was by far the most aggressive in securing Indian lands. It negotiated with the Oneida for a large tract of tribal land in 1785, a year after federal guarantees to that land, and again with the Oneida in 1788, as well as with the Onondaga in the same year and with the Cayuga the following year. New York went so far as to send individuals to disrupt the federal Treaty of Fort Stanwix (Treaty with the Six Nations) in 1784, although this effort failed to prevent the signing of the treaty. In the final days of the Continental Congress, the United States sought to reaffirm its treaties made between 1784 and 1786 with the hostile tribes by signing two treaties at Fort Harmar in January 1789. The first, with the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Sac, repeated the terms of the treaties of Fort McIntosh (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785) and Fort Finney (1786; Kappler 1904), but in a shift of policy, the United States made a payment to the Indian tribes of $6,000 in goods for the land taken (Kappler 1904, 16–18). The second treaty, with the Six Nations of New York, repeated the terms of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), and it, too, contained a payment in goods for land: $3,000. As the Mohawk under Joseph Brant were not in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

attendance at the treaty, they were denied any payment. The terms of both treaties were dictated by Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, who hoped that the treaties would end the warfare. However, most of the tribes in the Northwest Territory had refused to attend; of those who were present, none were represented by their principal chiefs. The treaties were repudiated by the tribes, making war in the Northwest Territory inevitable.

Treaties under the United States Constitution The United States under the Constitution began functioning in April 1789, beset with a myriad of Indian problems, including an inevitable war with the tribes in the Northwest Territory. However, unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution made the United States supreme in the conduct of Indian affairs. The Congress has the sole power “To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes” (Article I, Section 8) and to declare war (Article I, Section 8). It granted to the president the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate (Article II, Section 2). The first treaties to reach the president and the Senate were the two negotiated at Fort Harmar. They raised a serious question regarding the handling of Indian treaties. Did Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution apply to treaties between the United States and Indian tribes? Washington proceeded on the assumption that a treaty with an Indian tribe should be treated as any other treaty would under the Constitution. He sent the two treaties, supporting documents, and a report from Secretary Henry Knox to the Senate in May 1789. The following month, the Senate appointed a three-member committee to review the treaty and accompanying materials. The Senate was uncertain of the status of Indian treaties; after much consideration, the Senate advised Washington to carry out the treaty (Prucha 1994, 70–71). This did not satisfy Washington, and he so informed the Senate. He pointed out that treaties made by subordinates were not official until ratified by the sovereign “and I am inclined to think it would be adviseable to observe it in the conduct of our treaties with Indians . . . It strikes me that this point should be well considered and settled, so that our national proceedings in this respect may become uniform, and be directed by fixed, and stable principles” (as quoted in Prucha 1994, 72). The Senate agreed; Indian treaties were to be treated in the same

www.abc-clio.com

73

manner as any other treaty entered into by the United States. Once negotiated, they were submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, which was given by a two-thirds vote, and then proclaimed by the president. The Department of War, headed by Secretary Henry Knox, was charged with the implementation of Indian policy. Knox, like Washington, believed it was futile to attempt to take Indian land by force. He advised the president that the best policy was one in which the United States recognized the tribes’ rights to the lands they possess and offered to purchase by treaty what they were willing to sell. He was certain that the tribes would be willing to sell sections of land at reasonable cost. He explained, “As the settlements of the whites shall approach near to the Indian boundaries established by treaties, the game will be diminished, and the lands being valuable to the Indians only as hunting grounds, they will be willing to sell further tracts for small considerations” (ASP 1832–61:1, 13–14). But first the nation had to deal with a war in the Northwest Territory, hostilities in the South, and a possible war with tribes of the Six Nations in western New York. To meet these threats, the War Department formulated a threefold approach: First, the United States would wage war on the tribes along the Wabash River, principally the Miami. Second, the United States would carry on negotiations with the southern Indian tribes, particularly the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Third, the president, with the approval of the Senate, would send a commissioner to settle differences with the Six Nations, principally the Seneca, who were angry over the forced land concessions at Fort Stanwix and Fort Harmar. The United States made two unsuccessful attempts to defeat the Indian tribes north of the Ohio. In the summer of 1790, General Josiah Harmar led an army of 1,453 militia and regulars against the Miami, and after destroying a number of villages, the army was defeated. The following year, territorial governor Arthur St. Clair assembled an army of 2,770 and marched into Miami country. There he met an army consisting of Miami, Wyandot, Chippewa, and Kickapoo, led by the Miami chief Little Turtle. The results were disastrous for the United States. Of the 1,400 U.S. troops who participated in the battle, more than 900 were killed or wounded. The rest retreated to the safety of Fort Hamilton (now Cleveland, Ohio) (Mahon 1988, 150; Downes 1977, 317–318). After the battle, General Anthony Wayne

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

74

Historical Periods

replaced St. Clair. Wayne was ordered to raise and train an army to defeat the tribes in the Northwest Territory. The problems with the Six Nations in New York and the tribes in the South were largely the result of white settlers committing crimes against Indians within tribal territories, dishonest traders who cheated the Indians with shoddy goods and exorbitant prices, and states and citizens who forced or tricked the Indian tribes into selling their lands at paltry rates. To remedy these conditions, Congress in 1790 passed the first of a series of laws known as the Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts. These acts sought to regulate trade by licensing the traders who entered Indian country, making individuals who commit crimes in Indian country subject to state or territorial laws and punishments, and prohibiting the sale of Indian lands to individuals and to states “whether having the right of pre-emption to such lands or not, unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States” (1 Stat. 137–138). The last provision applied only to the original thirteen states, which were acknowledged to have retained the preemption right, that is, the right to purchase the Indian lands within their borders; however, the United States determined when that right could be exercised, when Indian title could be extinguished. The Act of 1790 was temporary, set to expire in June 1793, but Congress renewed and strengthened the act in March of that year. (Congress continued to renew and revise the act in three-year increments until 1802, when it was made permanent. Although the act was modified throughout the period, the essential provision prohibiting individuals from purchasing Indian land and the restrictions on states doing the same remained.) President George Washington affirmed the protection of Indian land guaranteed by the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act to the Seneca chiefs Cornplanter, Half-Town, and Great-Tree in December 1790. Responding to a litany of complaints, Washington informed them of the provisions of the act and added, “Here, then, is the security for the remainder of your lands. No State, nor person, can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States. The General Government will never consent to your being defrauded, but it will protect you in all your just rights” (ASP 1832–61:1, 142). In addition to the assurances Washington gave to the Six Nations that their lands would be protected, he took the further

www.abc-clio.com

step of appointing Timothy Pickering, with the consent of the Senate, as Indian commissioner to the New York tribes. Between 1790 and 1794, Pickering held a series of conferences with the Six Nations to keep them neutral and to resolve outstanding differences. While the United States pursued its military efforts in the Northwest and its diplomatic efforts with the Six Nations, it had to contend with frequent border depredations in the South. With its limited resources, the United States could not engage in a war against the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Creeks, nor could it afford to have these tribes join with the Indian tribes north of the Ohio. In response to the dilemma, Washington chose a diplomatic approach, holding a number of treaty conferences with the southern Indian tribes. In 1790 and 1791, the United States negotiated treaties with the Creeks and Cherokee respectively. The two treaties contained essentially the same provisions: the tribes recognized U.S. protection and “no other sovereign whosoever”; the tribes would return all prisoners; their boundaries would be surveyed and guaranteed by the United States; the tribes were free to punish any citizen or inhabitant of the United States who settled on their land; hunting and entry on tribal land without a passport by citizens or inhabitants of the United States were forbidden; fugitives from justice were to be returned to the United States, and individuals committing crimes on Indian land were to be punished according to the laws of the state or territory where the Indian lands were located; both sides would refrain from retaliation; the tribes would give notice of any threats against the United States; and lastly, so that the Indian tribes “may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters,” the United States would supply domesticated animals and farm implements. Although these treaties did little to quell the border depredations, their provisions set the tone, format, and language for subsequent treaties. The year 1794 proved to be a turning point in Indian-United States relations and territorial policy. The previous summer, a U.S. delegation had met with the Ohio tribes to negotiate a settlement but had no success. The tribes insisted that the United States accept the Ohio River as the boundary between the parties, which the U.S. commissioners rejected. Negotiations having failed, Knox directed General Anthony Wayne to begin an offensive to secure the Ohio valley. Wayne waited until the sum-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

mer of 1794 to begin his campaign, and after building a string of forts on the Maumee and the Great Miami rivers, he moved to meet the Indian army, which numbered some two thousand. Wayne proceeded deliberately toward the Indian camp at Fallen Timbers, which was protected by an English post, Fort Miami. The tribes had been led to believe by English officials in Canada that the English would support them militarily and that war between the United States and England was imminent. But when Wayne, whose forces outnumbered the Indians, attacked, the English took no action. Although the Battle of Fallen Timbers, on August 20, did not destroy the tribes’ ability to fight, the failure of the English to help resulted in dissolution of the Indian fighting force. Wayne went on to destroy Indian villages and crops unopposed. The war in Northwest Territory was over, but the United States had yet to negotiate a settlement of all grievances with the Six Nations of New York, the tribes in the South, and those it had defeated in the Ohio valley. The United States began the process of settling tribal grievances even before the commencement of the offensive in the Northwest. In June 1794, the United States negotiated a treaty with the Cherokee at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, affirming the boundaries and other provisions of the treaties of 1785 and 1791 and granting the Cherokee annually “goods suitable for their use” worth $5,000 “in lieu of all former sums” (Kappler 1904, 26). Two years later, the United States made a similar treaty with the Creek; they confirmed the boundary provision of the treaty of 1790 and the boundaries set by the treaties with the Chickasaw, the Cherokee, and the Choctaw (1785–1786). In return, the United States made a onetime payment of $6,000 in goods to the Creek. The efforts of the federal government to prevent the Six Nations of New York from joining the Ohio tribes had been largely successful. By the fall of 1794, Timothy Pickering was ready to settle their grievances, having met in council with the Indian leaders and heard their complaints during the preceding three years. He called for a treaty council at Canandaigua, New York, which lasted some two months and ended in November. The treaty acknowledged the lands of the Oneida, the Onondaga, and the Cayuga in New York State to be theirs; nullified the land cession of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, returning to the Seneca the land taken, except for a four-mile strip along the east bank of the Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie; and granted the Six Nations an annuity of $4,500 in per-

www.abc-clio.com

75

petuity. In exchange, the Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida surrendered all claims to any other land within the United States. The treaty was signed by Timothy Pickering for the United States and by fiftynine “sachems and war chiefs” of the Six Nations, including Cornplanter, Red Jacket, Farmer’s Brother, the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake, and the Stockbridge chief Hendrick Aupaumut. Although both sides were aware of Wayne’s victory at Fallen Timbers months before, this did not greatly affect the final results. The principal U.S. interest in the treaty was to gain an unconditional surrender of any Six Nations claims to land in the Ohio Valley. Pickering justified the return of the Seneca lands in western New York, saying that the United States never had a right to the land because the preemption right belonged to Massachusetts, the lands lay within the boundaries of New York State, and the Seneca would never have agreed to the treaty without the return. There were other problems concerning tribal land and New York and Massachusetts claims to be resolved, and they presented some knotty legal and political issues. The Indian Trade and Intercourse acts made provision for the original thirteen states and Vermont and Maine, which had been parts of original states, to treat for land with tribes within their boundaries. There were two restrictions on the states: they could only negotiate at a federally held treaty at which a U.S. commissioner was present, and they could only negotiate the price to be paid to the tribe that held the right of use. New York State, under the leadership of Governor George Clinton, aggressively sought the purchase of tribal lands and in 1795 negotiated land sales with the Oneida, the Cayuga, and the Onondaga, much to the consternation of Secretary of War Timothy Pickering. John Jay succeeded Clinton as governor of New York in 1795, and he chose to comply with the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, resulting in three federally held treaties. The first of these was a treaty in 1796 with the Seven Nations of Canada: Caughnawaga and St. Regis (Mohawk), Lake of Two Mountains (Nippising, Iroquois, and Algonquin), St. Francis (Sokoki Abenaki), Becancour (Eastern Abenaki), Oswegatchie (Onondaga, Oneida, and Cayuga), and Lorette (Huron). By this treaty, the Seven Nations surrendered all their claims to land in New York, except for what is now the St. Regis Reservation in upstate New York along the St. Lawrence River, for “the sum of one thousand two hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eight-pence, lawful money” of New

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

76

Historical Periods

York State and an annuity of 213 pounds, 6 shillings, and 8 pence. A year later, under the leadership of Joseph Brant and John Deserontyon, the Mohawks surrendered their tribal claims in New York for $1,600. New York State negotiated treaties under federal auspices with the Oneida in 1798 and 1802, although the latter treaty was never ratified by the Senate or proclaimed by President Jefferson. Finally, in 1802 the United States held two treaties with the Seneca. These were unusual in that they were negotiated for the benefit of individuals, in apparent violation of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, which contained an absolute prohibition against individuals purchasing Indian land. The Seneca lands were a unique case. They were the subject of nearly 150 years of dispute over who held the preemption right, Massachusetts or New York. Massachusetts claimed the right from a grant by King James I to the Plymouth Company in 1621 to all the land, from sea to sea, between the 40th and 48th parallels north. New York based its claim to the Seneca lands on a grant from King Charles II to his brother James II, Duke of York. The dispute lingered until 1786, when representatives of the two states met in Hartford, Connecticut, and agreed to a compromise that gave preemption to Massachusetts and jurisdiction to New York. Massachusetts then sold its preemption right to the 6 million acres of Seneca land to private speculators, who in 1788 purchased from the Seneca 2.6 million acres for $5,000 and an annuity of $500 (New York State Assembly Document 51 1889:16–18). The owners of the preemption were unable to convince the Seneca to sell any more of their remaining 3.4 million acres until 1797. In that year, Robert Morris, acting as agent for the owners, met with the Seneca under the authority of a U.S. Indian commissioner and negotiated the Treaty of Big Tree, whereby the Seneca sold some 3.2 million acres for $100,000 in Bank of the United States stock, reserving for themselves approximately 200,000 acres on nine reservations in western New York State (ibid., 131–134). In 1802, the Seneca agreed to exchange with owners of the preemption forty-two square miles of land of their Cattaraugus Reservation for an equal amount along Cattaraugus Creek. In a separate treaty negotiated at the same convention, the Seneca sold Little Beard’s reservation of two square miles for $1,200. These treaties were signed by the most prominent men in the Seneca Nation, including Cornplanter, Farmer’s Brother, Red Jacket, and Handsome Lake.

www.abc-clio.com

Two additional transactions to which a U.S. Indian commission was present require mention. In 1823, the owners of the preemption right purchased from the Seneca a tract of land for $4,286, and in 1826 the Seneca sold to the same group a second tract of 86,887 acres for $48,260. Neither sale was ratified by the Senate or proclaimed by the president. Returning to the Northwest Territory, the Treaty of Greenville, which ended the war in that region, was signed on August 3, 1795, by General Anthony Wayne and chiefs of the Wyandot, Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Kickapoo, Miami (including the Piankashaw, Wea, and Eel River bands), Kickapoo, and Kaskaskia. In all, sixty-nine chiefs incribed their marks on the treaty, including Little Turtle, the great Miami chief, and Blue Jacket, a chief of the Shawnee. The treaty was similar in form to those that had preceded it: it declared the parties to be at peace; required that prisoners be exchanged and that the United States hold ten Indian chiefs hostage until the exchange was completed; included a major cession of land north of the Ohio River, plus specific sessions for forts, trading posts, portages, and so forth; and obligated the tribes to warn the United States of any hostile intent by others. In exchange, the United States gave the tribes $20,000 in goods and a perpetual annuity of $9,500 to be divided among them. The tribes were empowered to expel illegal settlers; trade would be opened with the United States, retaliation restrained, and all former treaties voided.

Treaties and National Territorial Expansion, 1800–1829 Four policy goals defined treaty making during the first decades of the nineteenth century: land acquisition, changing tribes to agrarian-based economies, managing trade, and securing and maintaining peaceful relations. First and foremost was the acquisition of land to satisfy the flood of immigrants and Americans moving westward. This meant the surrender of large sections of tribal land upon which the tribes depended for subsistence. To compensate for the land losses, the United States sought to convince the tribes to give up hunting and adopt European American farming and, by providing funds for schools, to adopt American ways. To supply the tribes with products they could not raise or manufacture, the United States proposed to establish trading posts, sometime called factories, on the diminished tribal lands. This would have the salutary

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

effect of reducing complaints from tribes about the unfair practices of individual traders and would keep out any foreign influences potentially threatening to the United States. It would, in addition, provide the federal government with information concerning tribal affairs, invaluable for treaty negotiations. Finally, the treaties would establish and confirm peace and commit the tribes to recognize the United States as their sole protector. This was of particular importance because Spain, France, and England possessed land on the nation’s borders and, through trade and alliances, had great influence with many of the tribes east of the Mississippi River. The problem of foreign involvement in what the federal government considered internal national issues became particularly acute in 1802, when President Thomas Jefferson learned of Spain’s secret transfer of the Louisiana Territory to Napoleon. However, the threat of a French occupation of New Orleans, and thus control of the Mississippi River, was removed when the United States in 1803 purchased France’s preemption right west of the Mississippi River, an area of some 828,000 square miles. That left Spain in control of Florida, and the English along the nation’s northern border. Although President Jefferson was initially concerned that the purchase was unconstitutional, in the end pragmatic factors overcame philosophical ones, and Jefferson embraced the purchase. The United States had nearly doubled its size and brought within its boundaries a then-unknown number of tribes, yet it had not cleared its title to the area it had secured from England in 1783 nor settled its relations with the tribes that occupied these lands. Jefferson recognized that the tribes east of the Mississippi River were growing ever more opposed to selling any of their land, while at the same time the demands for land were increasing exponentially. The dilemma for the national government was how to gain title without provoking another series of Indian wars. Jefferson made no departure from the Indian policy established during Washington’s administration. Congress had enacted the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act in 1790 and had renewed and modified the act in 1793, 1796, and 1799. In the 1796 renewal of the act, Congress established a system of government-owned trading posts “for the purpose of carrying on a liberal trade with the several Indian nations, within the limits of the United States” (1 Stat. 452). In 1802, Congress made permanent the

www.abc-clio.com

77

provisions of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts. The act of 1802 contained a description of the boundary between Indian country and the United States, continued the prohibitions against settlement on Indian land, provided for the punishment of crimes committed in Indian country, required the issuance of passports to enter Indian country and licenses to trade, prohibited the sale of alcohol, and authorized the president “in order to promote civilization among the friendly Indian tribes, and to secure the continuance of their friendship, . . . to cause them to be furnished with useful domestic animals, and implements of husbandry, and with goods and money, as he shall judge proper . . .” (2 Stat. 139–146). Achieving what had emerged as national policy—the acquisition of tribal land without resorting to conquest—depended on convincing the tribes to change their lifestyles; to accomplish this, the tribes would have to abandon hunting and adopt agriculture. “The extensive forests necessary in the hunting life will then become useless,” Jefferson wrote to Congress in 1803, “and they will see advantage in exchanging them for means of improving their farms and of increasing their domestic comforts.” Jefferson saw that federal government trading posts were an essential part of national policy (Prucha 2000, 21). Thus, trade provisions were incorporated in many of the subsequent treaties.

The South Between 1801 and 1829, the United States made thirty-nine treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These treaties extinguished Indian title to all of the land east of the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico, except for specific reservations of land for tribal use and occupancy. The first two treaties were with the Chickasaw and the Choctaw in 1801. Collectively, they gave the United States permission to build a road across tribal territory from Tennessee to “Natchez in the Mississippi Territory.” These treaties cut a road diagonally from the northeast to the southwest across the tribal territories. In addition, the Choctaw treaty included a provision for the remarking of the boundary lines set by the English before the Revolutionary War and a relinquishment of land east of the Cumberland Mountains (Royce 1900, Pl. LXII). For their cessions, the Chickasaw received $700 in goods, and the Choctaw received $2,000 in goods (Kappler 1904:2, 41–43). In 1805, the Cherokee

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

78

Historical Periods

agreed to allow a road to run through their territory to connect Knoxville, Tennessee, with New Orleans. The tribe was paid $1,600 (ibid., 61). Having gained rights-of-way to the Mississippi River across tribal lands, the United States set out to secure the intervening land. This involved land in four states—Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—and in the Territory of Mississippi. The western part of Tennessee belonged to the Chickasaw and the Cherokee tribes. The United States title to Chickasaw land was cleared by three treaties in 1805, 1816, and 1818; Cherokee land was purchased in 1805, 1806, and 1819. The Choctaw land was located in Alabama and Mississippi. By treaties in 1802, 1803, 1805, 1816, and 1820, the Choctaw surrendered their claims in the two states. In 1814, the Creek sold their land in Alabama. Most of the remaining Creek land was located in Georgia. To clear title to this land, the United States negotiated seven treaties with the Creek for land in Georgia: 1802, 1805, 1818, two in 1821, 1826, and 1827. The Cherokee also occupied land in Georgia, which they sold in 1804 and 1817. In 1816, they also sold a part of their territory in South Carolina. For their land cessions east of the Mississippi River, the four tribes received the following compensation: the Cherokee, $209,500 and $8,000 in perpetual annuities; the Chickasaw, $449,815; the Choctaw, $282,000 and $9,000 in perpetual annuities; the Creek, $1,427,000 and $23,000 in perpetual annuities (Kappler 1904, 2). Included in these totals were funds set aside for the construction and operation of schools for tribal children. Not all of the money stipulated to be paid by the United States went to the benefit of the tribes. The Choctaw’s $50,000 went to cover money owed to traders; $250,000 of the Creek funds were earmarked for a similar purpose. The Cherokee were paid $43,760 to indemnify individual tribal members for damage caused by the U.S. Army and citizens. Payments were made to specific individuals in the tribes, very often chiefs or prominent warriors. George Guess (Sequoyah) received $500 in the Cherokee treaty of 1828 “for the great benefits he has conferred upon the Cherokee people, in the beneficial results which they have are now experiencing from the use of the Alphabet discovered by him” (Kappler 1904:2, 207). The same treaty allocated $1,000 for the purchase of a printing press. The Choctaw chiefs and warriors received $14,972 for the assistance against the Upper Creeks in the Pensacola campaign during the War of 1812.

www.abc-clio.com

On the other side of the coin, because of “an unprovoked, inhuman, and sanguinary war, waged by the hostile Creeks against the United States” (Kappler 1904:2, 77), the Creek were forced by the treaty of 1814 to surrender more than twenty million acres in Georgia and Alabama (Prucha 1994, 11). The treaty referred to the Creek war of 1813–1814, fought against the United States by an Upper Towns band of the tribe. It took a combined force of American, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Lower Creeks to defeat the Upper Creeks and end the war. No compensation was granted to the Creek tribe in this treaty, even though a part of the tribe had remained loyal to the United States and assisted in the defeat of their fellow tribesmen. Although the majority of the treaties negotiated with the southern tribes represented the sale of everdiminishing tribal lands, several made after the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, which ended the War of 1812, provided for the exchange of land east of the Mississippi River for land in the Louisiana Territory. This possibility, a land exchange instead of a sale and reservation, had been foreseen by President Jefferson in 1803 and had been incorporated into law the following year. In 1804, Congress passed legislation establishing a system of governance for the Louisiana Territory. A provision in the act authorized the president “to stipulate with any Indian tribes owning lands on the East side of the Mississippi, and residing thereon, for an exchange of lands the property of the united States, on the West side of the Mississippi, in case the said tribe shall remove and settle thereon . . .” (2 Stat. 283). The Cherokee treaty of 1817 was the first to contain a provision for a land exchange. In exchange for surrendering land in Georgia, those who chose to emigrate were given an equal number of acres in the newly formed Territory of Arkansas. The head of each emigrating household was given a rifle and ammunition, a brass kettle or beaver trap, and a blanket for each member of the family. Those who remained east of the Mississippi River and desired to become citizens were to receive 160 acres of tribal land. The annuities due the Cherokee tribe would be divided proportionately between the two groups. A treaty with the Choctaws in 1820 contains similar provisions: land in the Arkansas Territory for their land in Mississippi, equipment for the emigrating families, and citizenship and land for those remaining in the state of Mississippi. These treaties ran into immediate opposition from settlers in the Arkansas Territory, so much so

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

that they required renegotiation. In 1825, the Choctaw were forced to surrender a large portion of the land they had acquired in Arkansas and to accept a cash payment and an annuity of $6,000 instead. In 1828, the Cherokee found themselves in the same situation. They were forced to exchange their seven million acres in Arkansas for an equal amount of land west of the Mississippi River. The treaty described their title in the following terms: Whereas, it being the anxious desire of the Government of the United States to secure to the Cherokee nation of Indians, as well those now living within the limits of the Territory of Arkansas, as those of their friends and brothers who reside in States East of the Mississippi, and who may wish to join their brothers of the West, a permanent home, and which shall, under the most solemn guarantee of the United States, be, and remain, theirs forever—a home that shall never, in all future time, be embarrassed by having extended around it the lines, or placed over it the jurisdiction of a Territory or State . . . (Kappler 1904:2, 206; emphasis in original)

ing it a capital crime to sell land. Their attitudes further hardened following the Creek war, largely because of sales made by the Lower Creeks. Finally, in 1825, when the leader of the Lower Town Creek, William McIntosh, a supporter of removal and active opponent of the Upper Town Creek, signed the treaty of 1825, the Upper Creeks killed him for ceding Creek land. Nonetheless, by 1829 much of the tribal land of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Florida tribes had been lost, and many of the tribal members had moved across the Mississippi River. More importantly, tribal governments had been damaged by factional disputes that, in the cases of the Cherokee and Creek, had led to a prolonged and at times violent struggle.

The Northwest and Louisiana Territories

In addition to the land guaranteed to the tribe, the United States granted the Cherokee “a free and unmolested use of all the Country lying West of the Western boundary” of their reservation, which in 1828 meant all of Oklahoma. Florida remained under Spanish control until 1819, when the United States completed its purchase. General Andrew Jackson, one of the principal negotiators of treaties with the southern tribes, had invaded the territory in 1818, precipitating the First Seminole War. Although that action caused a diplomatic flap, it allowed the U.S. negotiator, John Quincy Adams, to pressure Spain to sell its preemption right to the land. In 1823, the United States forced the weakened Florida tribes to sign a treaty whereby they surrendered all the territory, except for a small reservation, for $6,000 worth of “implements of husbandry, and stock of cattle and hogs” and a $5,000 annuity for twenty years (Kappler 1904:2, 141). It should not be assumed that these land transactions were accomplished with the full agreement of the tribes involved; quite the contrary. The Cherokee tribe split over the provision for removal in the treaty of 1817. The National Council of the Creek, led by the Upper Creeks, had passed a law in 1811 mak-

www.abc-clio.com

79

The United States followed the same policy objectives and negotiating procedures with the tribes in the Northwest Territory that it had followed with the southern tribes. However, the problems of dealing with the Northwest tribes were much more complicated and convoluted than in the South. In the Northwest, the United States found multiple tribal claims of ownership to the same lands and a continuing and growing resentment against the United States among members of the affected tribes. Tribal feelings were fed by the land forfeited by the tribes at the Treaty of Greenville in 1795 (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.) and by the waves of settlers who showed little concern for the boundaries between Indian land and that belonging to the United States. To be fair, not all the fault lay with the settlers. Although the United States had gained title to a sizable area in the Northwest Territory, the boundaries of the land cession were not well defined, which led inevitably to disputes. The United States endeavored to remedy this in 1803 by entering into a treaty with nine tribes—Delaware, Shawnee, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankashaw, and Kaskaskia—to define the boundary (Kappler 1904:2, 49), but by then settlements had been established on tribal lands, necessitating new concessions by the tribes. During the first decade of the nineteenth century, the United States entered into a series of treaties with individual tribes and groups of tribes covering millions of acres of land in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois. The provisions of these treaties were essentially the same: a land cession in exchange for cash or goods and/or an annuity, generally for a

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

80

Historical Periods

specified number of years. A treaty with the Kaskaskia, “originally called the Kaskaskia, Mitchigamia, Cahokia and Tamaroi,” in 1803 proclaimed that, because these tribes “from a variety of unfortunate circumstances . . . are reduced to a very small number,” the tribe could no longer use its extensive territory and therefore “do relinquish and cede to the United States all the lands in the Illinois Territory.” The tribe reserved but 1,630 acres for its own use. For this sale, the tribe had its annuity increased to $1,000, and because a majority of the tribal members were Catholics, the United States agreed to pay $100 to the Catholic priest for seven years (Kappler 1904:2, 49–50). In 1809, the United States signed four treaties; the first, with the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, and Eel River Miami, gave the United States a large cession in Indiana. What was unique about this treaty was that a portion of the promised annuity depended upon individual treaties with two tribes that were not parties to the original treaty, namely the Wea and the Kickapoo. They signed separate treaties agreeing to the terms of the treaty of 1809. Although the language of these treaties and those in the South suggests that they were the product of arms-length agreements, that the U.S. negotiators were sensitive to the needs and interests of their tribal counterparts, nothing could be farther from the truth. From the first opening session of a treaty council, the pressure brought to bear on the tribal negotiators was unremitting. If the presence of U.S. troops at the treaty council and the veiled threats of the U.S. negotiators did not result in the desired land cessions, often tribal negotiators were bribed. It is no wonder that by 1810 the tribes in the Northwest were preparing for war. As early as 1805, two Shawnee leaders were advocating a return to the ways of their forefathers. Led by Tenskatawa (the Prophet) and his brother Tecumseh and supported by the English in Canada, some of the tribes in the Northwest had organized to oppose the United States. Tecumseh’s movement split the tribes; those who supported Tecumseh in whole or part were mainly the Shawnee at Prophetstown and the Kickapoo, Ottawa, Chippewa, and Piankashaw; those who joined the Americans included the Wyandot, Sandusky, Seneca, Delaware, Sac, and the main body of the Shawnee. The Miami, one of the most powerful tribes, remained neutral despite attacks on its villages by the Americans. In addition, the tribes farther west, which included the Sioux, Menominee,

www.abc-clio.com

Fox, Iowa, Winnebago, Kansas, and Winnebago, joined the English. All would face U.S. negotiators at war’s end. The first signs of the impending conflict occurred in 1810 with skirmishes between the two sides. The following year, General William Henry Harrison marched against Prophetstown, Tenskatawa’s village on Tippecanoe Creek. Tenskatawa’s force came out to meet Harrison’s, and although the results were inconclusive, the Prophet lost support among his Shawnee followers. In 1812, the English declared war on the United States and openly joined Tecumseh. Hostilities continued, culminating in the Battle of the Thames in Ontario, Canada, in the summer of 1813, where Tecumseh’s forces and their English allies were defeated by the U.S. forces, and Tecumseh was killed. With the death of Tecumseh, Indian resistance in the Northwest collapsed, but there remained the war with England, which continued for another year. The Treaty of Ghent, signed in December 1814, ended the war between the United States and England. By its terms, the United States agreed to make peace with the warring tribes and to restore to them “all the possessions, rights, and privileges” they had possessed in 1811 before the start of hostilities. In 1815, President James Madison appointed commissioners to end hostilities with the tribes in the Northwest and Louisiana Territory. In all, the commissioners negotiated twenty treaties with twenty-two tribes on both sides of the Mississippi between 1815 and 1817. These treaties, although they varied slightly in detail, generally speaking contained clauses that established “perpetual peace and friendship” between the parties, recognized past treaties signed by the parties, forgave injuries committed by the parties, and returned any prisoners. The treaties of peace and friendship were but a prelude to an intensive period of land acquisition. The concerns of the United States were threefold: to complete the acquisition of the land in the Northwest, including Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; to secure title to land along the west side of the Mississippi River; and to establish relations and supremacy over the tribes farther west. To accomplish the first objective, the federal government made seventeen treaties between 1818 and 1829 (see Table 1). By these treaties, the United States secured most of the Indian title in the area, with the exception of Wisconsin. The nineteen treaties made with the tribes to the west of the Mississippi River

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829

secured for the nation control of the Mississippi River, land for settlement, and a place to move the eastern tribes (see Table 2).

Table 1 Treaties of Cession, by State (Northwest)

State

Number of Treaties Tribes Involved

Ohio

Indiana

4

Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca (Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami

11

Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca (Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami, Kickapoo Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca (Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami, Winnebago Sac, Chippewa, Ottawa, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Potawatomi, Wea, Delaware, Kickapoo, Winnebago

Michigan

9

Illinois

9

Wisconsin

5

Sac, Chippewa, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Winnebago

Note: Many of these treaties contained cessions of land in more than one state.

Table 2 Treaties of Cession, by State (West of the Mississippi) Number of Treaties

State

Tribes Involved

Louisiana

1

Quapaw

Arkansas

4

Quapaw, Osage

Indian Territory

3

Quapaw, Osage

Missouri

6

Kickapoo, Sac, Fox, Iowa, Osage, Kansa, Shawnee

Kansas

3

Osage, Kansa, Shawnee

Nebraska

6

Kansa

Iowa

1

Sac, Fox

Note: Many of these treaties contained cessions of land in more than one state.

www.abc-clio.com

81

While busy with the land acquisitions just described, the United States began its preparation for the next set of treaties in the 1820s. The first step in the process was to secure treaties of friendship. Again, the treaties followed a set form. The tribes acknowledged the supremacy of the United States and its exclusive right to regulate all trade. For its part, the United States undertook to protect the tribes. In the mid-1820s, the United States made treaties with the Ponca, Sioux, Cheyenne, Arikara, Ministaree, Mandan, Cree, Pawnee, and Omaha. In all, the United States made fifty-three treaties between 1818 and 1829 with the tribes in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and west of the Mississippi River.

Conclusion In the six decades between the commencement of the American Revolution and the election of Andrew Jackson as president, the United States moved its borders across the continent. The policy of incremental acquisition through purchase established during the Washington administration served the national interest throughout the period. Through the treatymaking process, the nation acquired millions of acres from Indian tribes. Besides the loss of their land, the same treaty process also resulted in the displacement of many of the tribes and the change of their status from recognized, fully independent sovereignties to what Chief Justice John Marshall would describe as “domestic dependent nations.” Jack Campisi References and Further Reading American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, vol. 1. 1832–1861. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. Deloria, Vine, Jr. and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 1. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Mahon, John K. 1988. Indian-United States Military Situation, 1775–1848. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian-White Relations, ed. William C. Sturtevant, 144–162. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

82

Historical Periods New York (State) Legislature. Assembly. 1889. Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian Problem of the State of New York, Appointed by the Assembly of 1888. Albany, NY: Troy Press. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Royce, C. C. 1881. “Cessions of Land by Indian Tribes to the United States: Illustrated by those in the State of Indiana.” In First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879–80, 247–262. Washington, DC. “Treaty of Fort Finney or Treaty with the Shawnee, January 31, 1786.” 1904. In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler, 16–18. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849

T T

he Indian removal policy implemented by the U.S. government in the early nineteenth century resulted in dozens of land cession treaties with Indian groups east of the Mississippi River. Under the removal policy, treaties were negotiated with numerous eastern tribes, including the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Cherokee, the Seminole, the Muscogee Creek in the South, and more than twenty tribes in New York, the Great Lakes area, and along the Mississippi River north of the Ohio River. These treaties ceded millions of acres of land to U.S. control and forced the relocation of tens of thousands of Indians to Indian Territory. The causes of the removal policy arose from many sources, including American economic growth, the movement of American settlers west and south, racism toward Indians, and the assertion of states’ rights. Although most Americans supported Indian removal for one reason or another, some opposed it as an unjust policy. Indians responded to the call for removal in a variety of ways; some accepted the apparent inevitability of removal and negotiated treaties to their best possible advantage, whereas others refused to accept removal by fighting back legally and physically, staying in their homelands, or moving somewhere other than Indian Territory. The impact of the removal treaties was as dramatic as any other episode in the long history of Indianwhite relations and continues to shape affairs in Indian country and throughout the United States.

Origins of the Removal Policy The U.S. government policy that removed Indian groups east of the Mississippi River to Indian Territory in the first half of the nineteenth century stemmed from many causes, but key officials had suggested the eventuality of Indian removal virtually from the moment the United States became a country. War hero George Washington declared in 1783 that “[the] gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire . . .” (Wallace 1993, 38). Under the new Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, government officials increased the push for Indian removal. In 1789, Secretary of War Henry Knox suggested the inevitability of removal, asserting that “in a short period the idea of an Indian this side of the Missis-

sippi will be found only in the pages of the historian . . .” (Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams 1998, 94). A component of early American Indian policy, which began under President Washington and continued under his successors until President Andrew Jackson, was the “civilization” plan. Under this program, the U.S. government urged Indian peoples to adopt American notions of economy, politics, and gender roles. This meant that Indians should abandon hunting as a source of sustenance for agriculture, especially the production of such cash crops as cotton. Differing views about the proper use of land divided Indians and European Americans from the earliest days of contact; eastern Indians pointed out that they already grew vast quantities of corn, squash, beans, pumpkins, and sunflowers. Indian men hunted deer and other animals to provide meat protein for their families’ diets and to engage in the fur trade, which the U.S. government sought to manipulate. Indian women farmed among the matrilineal eastern tribes, and Indian men tended to view such work as “women’s work,” contrary to American understandings of gender roles. The U.S. “civilization” policy sought to turn Indian men into farmers and Indian women into spinners and weavers of cotton, thus challenging Indian cultural concepts at a basic level. In addition, and more to the point of land cessions, the U.S. government insisted that Indians who no longer hunted required far less land and thus should sell their excess acreage to the United States to be sold, in turn, to European American settlers. Indians greeted the “civilization” plan with mixed reactions. A minority of elite and wellconnected individuals and families in all the eastern Indian groups adapted rather easily to a marketbased economy resting on the production of cotton, wheat, and other commodities. These people instituted cultural modifications such as private property, slave ownership, and constitutional government, in accordance with broader American patterns. Nevertheless, Indian groups as a whole remained staunchly resistant to land cessions, thus negating one of the principal desired effects of “civilization” from the American perspective. Although he did not put Indian removal into action, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to advocate the possibility of removal. In late 1802 and early 1803, Jefferson wrote several letters and issued

83 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

84

Historical Periods

official messages urging the creation of federally run trading posts, with the intent, among other purposes, of putting Indians into debt. He realized that the fur trade was a dying practice east of the Mississippi River and that Indians would have to pay their debts by land cessions. Jefferson also suggested that any Indian group offering military resistance to the United States would be driven from the East. He further added that Indians “will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi . . .” (Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams 1998, 95). In July 1803, word reached Jefferson that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France was complete, and he and other government officials recognized immediately that the United States now owned a vast area west of the Mississippi River to which Indian people in the East could be banished. The Louisiana Purchase provided the inspiration and the area for proremoval advocates to remove eastern Indians and to construct a clear-cut dividing line between Americans and Indians. The War of 1812 furthered the cause of Indian removal in a number of important ways. Unified eastern Indian resistance to the United States became extremely difficult with the defeat of the pan-Indian movement led by Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa, the Prophet, in the Great Lakes area. Never again would a multitribal force arise east of the Mississippi River to counter American expansion. In the South, Indian groups remained divided, and during the War of 1812 the militant Red Stick Creeks failed in their attempt to stem American expansion and American influences on their people. Andrew Jackson, as major general of the Tennessee militia, led the U.S. and Indian forces that defeated the Red Sticks, who had attacked and killed some four hundred Americans at Fort Mims, north of Mobile. Jackson’s forces, aided by Choctaws, Cherokees, and non-Red Stick Creek, defeated the Red Sticks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River in 1814. Jackson, at the subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson, forced all Creeks to cede about twenty-three million acres. Jackson then moved his forces south and defended New Orleans from British attack, earning himself national celebrity. The United States had found it difficult to enforce its will against Indians as long as another European power, especially Britain, resided in eastern North America and maintained trade with Indi-

www.abc-clio.com

ans. The War of 1812 essentially eliminated that threat when the United States defeated British forces outside New Orleans and in Canada, thus encouraging American emigration westward, especially into the Old Northwest region of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. With the end of the War of 1812, a major economic transformation began, called the Market Revolution by historians, which encouraged Americans of all ranks to seek out profitmaking enterprises. That shift from a predominantly subsistence-based lifestyle to one that sought profit by any available means increased pressure on eastern Indians to give up land. Economic, demographic, and local pressures for Indian removal increased in the early nineteenth century. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, perfected in 1793, and other new cotton processing machines enabled the efficient processing of short-staple cotton that grew well throughout the interior of the Deep South. As a result, European American settlers relocated to the Mississippi Territory, established in 1798 and encompassing present-day Mississippi and Alabama, to cultivate cotton. These newcomers began demanding access to Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee lands in those areas. In Georgia, the calls for Cherokee removal reached new heights when gold was discovered on Cherokee lands in the late 1820s. In the north, the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 across the state of New York encouraged European American emigration to the west and dramatically increased pressures on Indians from New York to Wisconsin to move westward. Other internal improvements, such as railroads and more canals, encouraged American westward migration, resulting in rapid population growth in the newer western territories. The white population north of the Wabash River in Indiana, for example, exploded from 3,380 in 1830 to 65,897 in 1840. The short-lived Black Hawk War in 1832, in which the Sac and the Fox Indians fought white settlers in Indiana and Wisconsin, further sharpened northern voices against Indians remaining in the East. The cries of settlers in the southern and other western states highlighted another major component of Indian removal, the conflict between states and the federal government over Indian relations and control of land. States demanded control over all lands within their borders, while the federal government insisted that, according to the Constitution, it alone could negotiate with Indians who maintained a treaty relationship with the United States. Settlers and elected

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849

officials in the newer western states grew increasingly strident in their denunciation of Indians, and violence sometimes resulted. No matter how much a particular Indian group became “civilized,” Indians encountered uncompromising racism among Americans in the early nineteenth century. One renown western politician, Henry Clay of Kentucky, said he did not “countenance inhumanity towards [Indians],” but he did not “think them, as a race, worth preserving,” because they were “essentially inferior to the Anglo-Saxon race” (Garrison 2002, 25). Among European Americans, belief in the unique manifest destiny of the United States and in racial explanations for human behavior became firmly entrenched in the early decades of the nineteenth century. Perhaps more than any other American of the pre-removal generation, Lewis Cass, as governor of the Michigan Territory from 1813 to 1831 and then as secretary of war under Andrew Jackson from 1831 to 1836, formulated the racist moral justification for Indian removal. Conveniently ignoring the horticultural and agricultural reality lived by most eastern Indians, Cass argued that land must be turned over by Indian “hunters” to American agriculturalists, who would make more productive use of it. Only through removal west of the Mississippi, Cass urged, could Indian people acquire the time and space to become “civilized.” Cass ridiculed those who “would give to a few naked and wandering savages, a perpetual title to an immense continent,” and he insisted that “the Indians shall be made to vanish before civilization, as the snow melts before the sunbeam” (Wallace 1993, 45). Ironically, Indian success under the tenets of “civilization” made them a greater menace to white Americans. The Cherokee, who had formed a constitutional government and aggressively asserted their sovereignty after the War of 1812, had moved far toward economic self-sufficiency by growing and selling cotton, further entrenching their claims to their land. Racial justifications for taking Indian land thus became predominant after 1815, as white Americans greedily sought access to Indian land. Racism surfaced even among Americans who acted in the perceived best interests of Indians. Many American groups who sought to assist Indians, such as Protestant missionaries, eventually supported Indian removal west of the Mississippi, like Cass, as a method of buying time for Indians to become more acculturated to American customs away from the threats of their American neighbors.

www.abc-clio.com

85

Pro-removal forces in America received a boost in 1828, when one of their own, Andrew Jackson, was elected president. A former congressman, senator, and judge from Tennessee, Jackson had gained fame during the War of 1812 when, as head of the Tennessee militia, he led the fight against the Red Stick Creek Indians and then won the Battle of New Orleans. After the War of 1812, Jackson participated in several land cession treaties with the southern Indian groups and urged them to begin migrating west of the Mississippi. By 1820, Jackson’s efforts had opened up nearly fifty million acres for American settlement by compelling southern Indians to cede parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. In addition, Jackson led an invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 against the Seminole and the remaining Red Stick Creek Indians, killing several of their chiefs and two British agents whom Jackson accused of inciting the Indians to attack Americans. Jackson then captured Spanish Pensacola, and after Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819, Jackson briefly became territorial governor of Florida in 1821. By 1823, Jackson was running for president of the United States. He won the most votes but did not gain the needed majority of electoral votes in the election of 1824, which resulted in the “corrupt bargain” that brought John Quincy Adams to the presidency. Nevertheless, Jackson’s actions in Indian affairs forced the hands of the Monroe (1817–1825) and Adams (1825–1829) administrations to seek voluntary removal among eastern Indians—a call that select groups of Indians heeded by moving west into Arkansas, Louisiana, and even Texas (part of Spain until Mexican independence in 1821), but that most eastern Indians ignored. In the 1828 election, Jackson and his Democrat Party won easily over Adams, establishing as commander-in-chief of the entire U.S. military the man made famous as an Indian fighter, who possessed a proven record of supporting Indian removal. State politicians, especially in the South, saw in Jackson a staunch supporter of states’ rights, and they responded to his election, even before Jackson was inaugurated as president, by passing laws extending state jurisdiction over Indian lands. Georgia was the first state to do so; on December 20, 1828, it adopted legislation extending state jurisdiction over Cherokee lands in northwest Georgia, although the state delayed enforcement until June 1830 to give Jackson and the federal government time to support their action. Alabama passed a law extending its

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

86

Historical Periods

jurisdiction over Creek Indian lands in January 1829. Mississippi passed a resolution claiming jurisdiction over Choctaw and Chickasaw lands within its borders that was signed into law by the governor on February 4, 1829. Thus, southern states enabled Jackson to mask Indian removal as a solution to the emerging conflict between states’ rights and federal jurisdiction and power. In his first State of the Union address in December 1829, Jackson urged eastern Indians to remove west voluntarily or become subject to the laws of the states. After much debate and a close vote in Congress, during which certain Whig politicians—especially the deeply religious Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey—argued against Indian removal on moral grounds, President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law on May 29, 1830. Jackson defended the Removal Act’s passage at the time by emphasizing that this bill “puts an end to the possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and state Governments, on account of the Indians” (Satz 2002, 44). The act called on the president to negotiate removal treaties with Indian groups and to exchange lands west of the Mississippi River for Indian lands in the east. In his State of the Union speech that December, Jackson applauded the act on humanitarian terms, stating that removal at federal government expense provided Indians with a chance of survival and demonstrated the “humanity and national honor” of the United States in taking action to save “these people” (Wallace 1993, 123). Jackson also insisted that the Removal Act was “so just to the States and so generous to the Indians—the Executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation of Congress, and of all good and disinterested men” (Satz 2002, 44). Jackson attacked critics of the Removal Act and exposed the ethnocentric and racist essence of the new policy by asking, “[W]hat good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?” (Satz 2002, 44). Despite Jackson’s generous line of reasoning in support of Indian removal, the Indian Removal Act forced Indians to choose between removal and retaining some autonomy, or subjection entirely to the laws of the state wherein they resided. There was no doubt that the states intended to dispossess Indi-

www.abc-clio.com

ans of their land. The legal mechanism for removal was in place; all that remained were treaties to be negotiated with each tribe establishing the particulars of their deportation.

The Removal Treaties: The South Treaty with the Choctaw at Dancing Rabbit Creek, 1830 The first American Indians to have the Indian Removal Act forced upon them were the Choctaw of Mississippi. Certain Choctaw leaders, notably Greenwood LeFlore, responded to Mississippi’s extension of state laws over Indians in February 1829 by attempting to negotiate a removal treaty on behalf of all Choctaw before the Removal Act had been passed by Congress. The proposed treaty contained generous compensation for the Choctaw, but it did not reflect the will of most Choctaw people. President Jackson forwarded the treaty to the Senate anyway in May 1830, but the Senate, noting significant Choctaw opposition to the LeFlore treaty, decided not to approve it. Jackson then invited Choctaw representatives to meet him at Franklin, Tennessee, to negotiate a new treaty, but they refused and instead suggested a meeting within Choctaw territory in September 1830. Secretary of War John Eaton and former Indian agent John Coffee, Andrew Jackson’s nephew by marriage, represented the United States at the treaty grounds at Dancing Rabbit Creek. Eaton and Coffee, using Jackson’s rationalization, warned the approximately five thousand Choctaw in attendance that they could not prevent the state of Mississippi from taking over their lands and that therefore the Choctaw ought to cooperate in removal and gain terms as favorable as possible from the United States. The Choctaw remained deeply divided over removal; after two weeks many of them left the treaty grounds having decided not to give up their lands. American agents convinced the remaining Choctaw, including the three leading chiefs LeFlore, Nitakechi, and Mushulatubbe, to sign the treaty on September 27, 1830. Each of these chiefs, along with several other Choctaw with American connections, received personal sections of land in Mississippi as a form of bribery to ease their resistance to removal. These individuals either stayed in Mississippi, as did LeFlore, or sold their sections for profit. The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 24, 1831. According to its provisions, the Choctaw ceded all of their land

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849

east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land, annuities, and other assistance on land west of the Arkansas Territory that became known as Indian Territory. The Choctaw were to leave Mississippi within three years. The vast majority migrated west under situations of near starvation; many died along the way. A few hundred moved that first winter after the treaty was signed, and the rest moved in the next few succeeding years. Individual Choctaw could stay in Mississippi on specific allotted sections of land if they so chose, but all communally held land was dissolved. William Ward, the U.S. agent assigned to manage the allotment process, through fraud and incompetence did not register all of the individual claims, however, and many Choctaws who chose to stay did not receive title to their lands and were forced to relocate anyway. As historians have noted, Choctaw who tried to remain in Mississippi became victims of fraud, intimidation, and land speculation. The early 1830s are known as the “flush times” in Mississippi history, for whites squatted on and seized Choctaw lands with no regard for Indian rights or fair play. Yet a couple of thousand Choctaw managed to stay in Mississippi amid discrimination and poverty and are the basis of the Mississippi Choctaw of today.

Treaty with the Creek, 1832 Muscogee Creek leaders responded to Alabama’s extension of jurisdiction over their lands by proposing that they cede lands but retain blocks of private reserves within Alabama under the control of individual families. They took these proposals to Washington, D.C., in March 1832. Secretary of War Lewis Cass disagreed with the size and number of the reserves, but he reached a compromise with the eight Muscogee Creek chiefs on March 24. The resulting treaty was not specifically a removal treaty, for even though the Creek agreed to cede all their lands east of the Mississippi River, they were to receive allotments in Alabama that could be sold or retained under Creek ownership. By April 2, the U.S. Senate had unanimously ratified the treaty. Although the treaty called on the U.S. government both to assist those Creek who wished to emigrate west and to guarantee Creek title to allotted lands in Alabama, the federal government refused to assist Creek in Alabama when whites seized their lands anyway. Land speculators took advantage of the remaining Muscogee Creek and perpetrated frauds resulting in utter turmoil and loss of the Creeks’ homes. The Creek wandered around Alabama seek-

www.abc-clio.com

87

ing food and shelter, eventually attacking white settlers and seizing crops and livestock in revenge. In 1836, Cass finally intervened, not as guarantor of Creek rights but instead to forcibly remove the remaining Creeks west of the Mississippi. The U.S. military accomplished what diplomacy could not, and by 1837 almost all of the fifteen thousand or so Muscogee Creek had emigrated to the West.

Treaties with the Chickasaw, 1830 and 1832 Chickasaw leaders also sought to acquire the best terms possible after the passage of the Indian Removal Act. In the summer of 1830, Chickasaw representatives met with U.S. delegates, including President Jackson, at Franklin, Tennessee, and a treaty was signed on August 31. The Chickasaw agreed to cede their lands east of the Mississippi River in exchange for an equal amount of land in the West, but when a suitable area could not be found, this treaty became void. New negotiations for removal were undertaken in 1832 in Chickasaw territory at Pontotoc Creek. On October 20, a treaty was signed that ceded Chickasaw lands to the U.S. government; the lands were to be surveyed and sold immediately, and each adult Chickasaw was to receive a temporary allotment, which would also be sold and all monies therefrom placed in a fund to cover the costs of removal. Whites quickly settled on the Chickasaw lands beginning in 1832, despite a provision of the treaty promising that the U.S. government would prevent white intrusion until the Chickasaw had actually left Mississippi. A suitable new homeland in the West was not found until January 1837, when the Chickasaw and Choctaw met at Doaksville, Choctaw Nation, in Indian Territory, and the Choctaw sold the western part of their new territory to the Chickasaw. Although this agreement between the two tribes was not a treaty with the United States, Jackson submitted it to the Senate for approval anyway, which was accomplished in February 1837. Further details about the exact extent of territory and rights granted the Chickasaw were decided in two additional agreements between the two Indian nations in 1854 and 1855.

Treaties with the Seminole, 1832 and 1833 Florida settlers had long complained about Indian “depredations” committed by the Seminole, and Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi plantation owners protested that runaway slaves found refuge among these Florida Indians. Border disputes between Americans and the Seminoles had exploded

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

88

Historical Periods

into full-scale war in 1818, when forces led by Andrew Jackson invaded Florida to punish Seminoles and capture African Americans who lived among them. In 1823, after Spain transferred control of Florida to the United States, the Seminole signed a treaty with the United States at Fort Moultrie that ceded the bulk of the Florida peninsula to U.S. control. Discord between the Seminole and Americans continued, however, as the Seminole found living difficult on their reduced acreage. Fulfilling his charge under the new Indian Removal Act, Colonel James Gadsden negotiated a removal treaty with the Seminole Indians at Payne’s Landing in northeastern Florida on May 9, 1832. The treaty of 1832 stipulated that removal was conditioned on the Seminoles agreeing to settle in the western territory that the War Department had chosen for them. Under duress, the seven Seminole who journeyed west to inspect their new land signed a new removal treaty with American agents there at Fort Gibson on March 28, 1833. The treaty declared that the Seminole agreed with the location of their new lands, accepted political unification with the Creek Indians, and assented to immediate emigration. Upon their return to Florida, the Seminole agents renounced the Fort Gibson treaty as coerced, and the Seminole refused to abide by the stipulations of either treaty. Meanwhile, a Seminole band that lived along the Apalachicola River signed a separate removal treaty with Gadsden in October 1832, and they migrated to Texas in 1834. The confusion over which Seminoles had authority to accept removal for other Seminoles created an impasse that resulted in a bitter, drawnout war between the Seminole and the United States that began in 1835 and was often referred to as the Second Seminole War. That war did not end until 1842, when all but a fragment of the Seminoles had been killed or forcibly removed; it cost the United States $30 million–$40 million and 1,500 dead soldiers. Pockets of Seminole and their African American brethren remained in Florida, however, and their descendants are still there.

Treaty with the Cherokee at New Echota, 1835 A few thousand Cherokee had voluntarily moved west after Georgia claimed possession of their lands in December 1828, but the bulk of the Cherokee refused to leave their homeland and instead fought removal through the legal system. In 1830, after the passage of the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court, ask-

www.abc-clio.com

ing for an injunction to prevent Georgia’s seizure of Cherokee lands. Attorneys for the Cherokee argued that, as an independent nation, the Cherokee could not be subject to state jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Marshall sympathized with the Cherokee position but declined to issue an injunction against Georgia, because Indian nations in the United States were “domestic dependent nations” rather than independent foreign nations; an Indian nation’s relationship to the United States therefore “resembles that of a ward to his guardian,” thus disqualifying the nation from suing in the Supreme Court. The Cherokee had gained some sympathy for their plight across the United States, and they eagerly pursued another chance to bring the issue of their sovereignty to the Supreme Court. Effective in March 1831, Georgia required any white person living in Cherokee country to have a license issued by the state. Missionaries Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler ignored this condition, were subsequently arrested by Georgia authorities, and appealed their case to the Supreme Court. In that case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall declared Georgia’s extension of state law over the Cherokee unconstitutional and ordered the release of the missionaries. Georgia refused to abide by the decision, and the executive branch of the federal government had no legal way—short of military intervention—to compel Georgia’s compliance had it so desired. The Cherokee won their legal battle, but Georgia’s refusal to honor that decision nullified their victory. After 1832, the Cherokee became less united in their determination to hold onto their lands, and a significant minority, called the Treaty Party, worked to get a removal treaty signed with the U.S. government beginning in 1834. A group of these men signed a removal treaty with Secretary of War John Eaton in Washington, D.C., and Jackson submitted it to the Senate in June 1834. The Senate, however, tabled the treaty, refusing to discuss it. Aware that there existed a group among the Cherokee willing to sign a removal treaty, the Jackson administration sent a representative to the Cherokee Nation in February 1835 to negotiate with them. The “treaty party” was dominated by four related men who aspired to elite status: Major Ridge, his educated son John Ridge, and his two nephews, the brothers Elias Boudinot and Stand Watie. Opposing them were the majority of Cherokee, united under the leadership of principal chief John Ross. Ridge and his relatives signed a removal treaty on March 14, 1835, but it was rejected by the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849

Cherokee Council and thus nullified. In December 1835, another meeting with U.S. negotiators was held at New Echota; only about two hundred Ridge supporters attended. A removal treaty was signed on December 29. The Cherokee Council condemned the treaty, and Ross appealed to the U.S. Senate to reject it, but the Senate approved it by a one-vote margin. The Treaty Party Cherokee emigrated to Indian Territory immediately, whereas the treaty required the rest of the eastern Cherokee to leave by May 23, 1838. Ross and the more than 15,000 other Cherokee who opposed the treaty appealed repeatedly to have the Treaty of New Echota voided, but they encountered little sympathy in the U.S. government. General Winfield Scott arrived in the Cherokee country in the summer of 1838 to oversee the forced relocation of the Cherokee, which resulted in numerous deaths and the loss of property at the hands of rapacious whites. The split among the Cherokee continued after removal: anti-removal Cherokee killed the two Ridges and Boudinot, and Watie and Ross competed for political power from the late 1830s through the Civil War in the 1860s. Meanwhile, a few hundred Cherokee managed to stay within the mountainous western border of North Carolina, where their descendants live today.

The Removal Treaties: The North Unlike the large, basically homogenous Indian societies of the South, Indian groups farther north in New York, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River Valley were smaller, more splintered societies that in many cases had already migrated dramatically from place to place in the years since the American Revolution. Though their particular histories and circumstances differed from the southern Indians, northern Indian groups confronted the same insistent U.S. government and the same rapacious attitude among white Americans. Negotiating from a position of strength, the United States signed treaties with the numerous northern groups to formalize their removal to the West and to clear up conflicting land claims. From 1829 to 1851, the United States signed eighty-six ratified removal treaties with twenty-six Indian groups in the North. In many cases, removal for the northern tribes was a continuation of their peripatetic history, though that does not mean that they all accepted removal without resistance or that they did not try to acquire the best possible terms.

www.abc-clio.com

89

Treaties with Ohio Valley Indians, 1831–1832 By 1830, many former Ohio Valley Indians had already signed treaties with the state of Ohio requiring them to move north to the Great Lakes or west to the Mississippi River Valley. Various bands of these groups had already moved west of the Mississippi River before 1830, and these final removal treaties sought to remove those who remained in the East and to settle any potential eastern land claims. President Jackson appointed Ohioan James B. Gardiner to negotiate removal treaties with remaining Indian groups in Ohio. In August 1831, Gardiner signed treaties with a group of Shawnee and the Ottawa that ceded all their lands in Ohio in exchange for new lands in the western country beyond Missouri. Profits gained from selling the ceded Ohio lands were to be used for infrastructure improvements, such as mills, in the new lands; the remainder of the money was to be invested on behalf of the Indians. The Wyandot in Ohio insisted that they be allowed to inspect and approve of the new western lands before agreeing to removal. When objectionable reports of the western lands came back, they refused to emigrate. Thus, in the removal treaty signed by Gardiner and the Wyandot on January 19, 1832, the Indians agreed to leave Ohio but “may as they think proper, remove to Canada, or to the river Huron in Michigan, where they own a reservation of land, or to any place they may obtain a right or privilege from other Indians to go” (Prucha 1994, 186–187). In October 1832, several former Ohio Valley Indian groups, including the Piankashaw, Wea, Peoria, and Kaskaskia in Illinois and the Shawnee, Delaware, Menominee, and Kickapoo, who had left Ohio decades earlier and were living at Cape Girardeau and other points along the upper Mississippi River, met with William Clark at St. Louis and signed treaties for their removal west of Missouri.

Treaties with New York Indians, 1831–1842 The various Iroquois and other Indian groups in New York ceded millions of acres to the United States and other interests in the decades after the American Revolution. In 1831 and 1832, additional Oneida, Stockbridge, and Brotherton Indians migrated to former Menominee lands in Wisconsin as a result of treaties involving the Menominee and the United States. In 1838, residents of western New York, particularly Buffalo, insisted that Indians remaining in the state, especially the Seneca, remove west beyond Missouri. A removal treaty with

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

90

Historical Periods

Seneca and other New York Indians, such as remnant Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, St. Regis, Stockbridge, Brotherton, and Munsee peoples, was signed at Buffalo Creek in 1838. Most Wisconsin land reserved to the New York Indians by previous treaties was also ceded for lands west of Missouri. When President Van Buren submitted the treaty to the Senate in April 1838, there erupted significant opposition to the treaty from the Indians and certain missionary groups, who contended that portions of the treaty were fraudulent and that a truly representative body of Indian chiefs did not sign. Nonetheless, the Senate ratified the treaty, based on certain revisions, made in June, that required the Indians to reapprove the treaty. New signatures by more Indian leaders were obtained by September 1838, and the treaty was sent back to the U.S. government for approval. The Senate and President Van Buren passed the new treaty back and forth, neither seeking to be the sole body authorizing the questionable treaty. When the Senate, seeking the president’s recommendation, returned the treaty to his desk, Van Buren responded, “That improper means have been employed to obtain the assent of the Seneca chiefs there is every reason to believe, and I have not been able to satisfy myself that I can, consistently with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March, 1839 cause the treaty to be carried into effect in respect to the Seneca tribe” (Prucha 1994, 205). In January 1840, Van Buren again presented the treaty to the Senate, where it was bitterly debated and resulted in several tied votes over the issue of whether or not the Indian signatures had been obtained fraudulently. Eventually, Vice President Richard Johnson broke the tie, and the revised treaty was accepted by simple majority vote in the Senate in March 1840. In spite of its passage, the complicated treaty of 1838 did not result in the movement westward of many New York Indians. A new treaty with the Seneca in May 1842 reestablished their reserves in New York and allowed them to stay there.

Potawatomi along the Tippecanoe River in Indiana and the United States were signed in October 1832. These agreements resulted in land cessions for the Potawatomi, but they also established around 120 reserves of land east of the Mississippi River for individual Potawatomi families. Because these treaties did not specifically require Potawatomi removal to the west, Lewis Cass insisted on a large treaty meeting with the Potawatomi, calling for their removal; the meeting was held in Chicago in September 1833. Catholic Potawatomi were allowed to remain in Michigan because of their conversion to Christianity, although the Potawatomi did agree to transfer most of their eastern land titles for five million acres west of Missouri. Dozens of Americans insisted that they deserved payment from the sale of eastern Potawatomi lands and government annuities to cover supposed costs for services rendered in the form of trade debts, injuries from conflicts such as the Black Hawk War of 1832, severance pay for old Indian agents and merchants, missionary activities, schools, and so on. President Jackson forwarded the Chicago treaty to the Senate in January 1834, despite concerns about the legitimacy of many of the claims. The Senate approved the treaty that May but changed the area of western land that the Potawatomi were to receive, as Missouri desired the area originally promised to the Indians. The treaty would not be valid until the Potawatomi agreed to the new lands, and the United States did not find any Potawatomi willing to do so until seven representatives signed the revised treaty months later. The Senate ratified the revised treaty on February 11, 1835. Further treaties with individual Potawatomi landholders between 1834 and 1836 resulted in the cession of nearly all their lands east of the Mississippi River. One Potawatomi group in Indiana consisting of around 850 persons refused to move west; they were seized by the U.S. military and forcibly marched west in 1838, and at least 40 Potawatomi died along the way.

Treaties with the Miami, 1833–1841 Treaties with the Potawatomi, 1832–1836 The Potawatomi negotiated nineteen separate treaties with the United States during the removal period. There were numerous Potawatomi villages and bands possessing fragmented areas of land in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, which resulted in the large number of treaties with them. In total, the Potawatomi still claimed more than five million acres until 1832. Three treaties between the

www.abc-clio.com

Much of the U.S. effort to extinguish Miami Indian land title east of the Mississippi was enveloped in similar efforts to remove the Potawatomi, as their lands bordered one another. Coming on the heels of the Black Hawk War of 1832, the United States attempted to get the Miami Indians of Indiana to sign removal treaties in 1833. That initial effort failed, but a treaty was signed with them on October 23, 1834, at the Forks of the Wabash. The Miami

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849

ceded most of their remaining lands in Indiana, but individual Miami were allowed to maintain allotments in the state, and the treaty did not explicitly call for Miami removal. President Jackson disapproved of that stipulation and delayed the treaty’s hearing by the Senate. His successor, Martin Van Buren, submitted the treaty to the Senate in October 1837, and final approval came in December of that year. Americans in Indiana opposed the treaty because it allowed Miami to remain in the state on individual landholdings, so new treaties were negotiated. In 1838, a treaty between the Miami and the United States assigned individual landholdings in the East. The Miami insisted that only tribal members could get such grants, that grants should not be given to non-Miami who had married into the tribe. Six Miami chiefs also traveled to Kansas to examine new lands. In 1840, Miami chiefs negotiated an unofficial treaty with the Indian agent assigned to their area, seeking financial remuneration in return for their removal to the West. This treaty, although not initiated at the federal level, was submitted to the Senate by President Van Buren anyway and approved on May 15, 1841. Removal for most Miami occurred in 1845–1846, although some Miami continued to own and live on individual land grants in Indiana.

Treaties with the Winnebago, Chippewa (Ojibway), Eastern Sioux, and Menominee, 1829–1851 Treaties with these Indians involved land in Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, in Michigan and in Minnesota. Henry Dodge, Wisconsin territorial governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, played the major role in enacting removal treaties among these groups. In 1829 and 1832, the Winnebago signed treaties ceding some land in Wisconsin in exchange for a small strip of land west of the Mississippi River between the Sioux to the north and the Sac and Fox to the south. A portion of the Winnebago population moved west, but this land was untenable, for the neighboring Indian groups warred against each other. A small group of Winnebago who did not have authority to cede lands traveled to Washington, D.C., in 1837 and signed a treaty calling on all Winnebago to abandon their Wisconsin lands and move west. Some Winnebago obeyed the treaty stipulations by moving west and eventually settling in Nebraska; other Winnebago, despite losing title to their lands, stayed in Wisconsin, refusing to abandon their homeland.

www.abc-clio.com

91

In the Pine Tree Treaty of 1837, so named because the United States sought access to timber resources on Chippewa land, the Chippewa ceded millions of acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but the treaty did not call for their complete removal from the east, and the Chippewa retained usufructuary rights to the ceded lands. In the Copper Treaty of 1842, named for the copper deposits on Chippewa lands, the Chippewa ceded most of northern Wisconsin to the United States while still retaining usufructuary rights; the area experienced a copper mining boom for the rest of the nineteenth century. In 1850, President Zachary Taylor issued an executive order extinguishing Chippewa usufructuary rights in the ceded lands and ordered their removal to unceded lands in Minnesota. The subsequent forced march of Chippewa west in the winter of 1850–1851 has been termed the “Wisconsin Death March” because more than four hundred Chippewa died. Some Chippewa did manage, however, to retain small tracts of land across northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The eastern Sioux ceded their lands east of the Mississippi in Wisconsin at a treaty meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1837. Their remaining lands in Minnesota came under increasing pressure from European American settlement, especially after the Minnesota Territory was created in 1849. In 1851, the eastern Sioux ceded most of their land in Minnesota, but land squatting by settlers and foot dragging by the federal government impeded until 1860 the finalizing of payment for those lands and of the actual boundaries of the Sioux reserves remaining in southern Minnesota. The Menominee ceded portions of their Wisconsin lands in a series of treaties beginning in 1831, the most spectacular being the 1836 treaty that ceded to the United States more than four million timber-rich acres in eastern Wisconsin. The Menominee disagreed sharply, however, over the legality of these cessions, and many Menominee refused to move for decades—or ever. In October 1848, the Menominee signed a removal treaty exchanging their lands in Wisconsin for territory across the Mississippi River in Minnesota, but they refused to leave and finally relocated along the Wolf River in Wisconsin in 1852. The amount of land ceded by Indian people as a result of the removal treaties is staggering. In the South, where the largest areas of eastern land under Indian control existed, the Choctaw ceded more than ten million acres in Mississippi; the Chickasaw

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

92

Historical Periods

ceded more than two million acres in Mississippi and Alabama; the Creek ceded about five million acres in Alabama; and the Cherokee ceded almost eight million acres in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Thus began a land craze in the South, as white venture capitalists, land companies, plantation owners, and small farmers all sought quick access to the newly opened lands. The resulting antebellum South, the South in the period between 1830 and 1860, came to be characterized by rapidly expanding cotton production and African American slavery in the areas abandoned by Indians. The creation of the unified, white-dominated, antebellum South would not have been possible without Indian removal, which had ironic consequences for the relationship between the states and the federal government. Greg O’Brien References and Further Reading Akers, Donna L. 1999. “Removing the Heart of the Choctaw People: Indian Removal from a Choctaw Perspective.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 23: 63–76. Beck, David R. M. 2002. Siege and Survival: History of the Menominee Indians, 1634–1856. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Carson, James Taylor. 1995. “State Rights and Indian Removal in Mississippi, 1817–1835.” Journal of Mississippi History 57: 25–41. Clifton, James A. 1987. “Wisconsin Death March: Explaining the Extremes in Old Northwest Indian Removal.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 75: 1–39. DeRosier, Arthur, Jr. 1970. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Foreman, Grant. 1932. Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Foreman, Grant. 1946. The Last Trek of the Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garrison, Tim Alan. 2002. The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Getches, David H., Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Jr. 1998. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Gibson, A. M. 1963. The Kickapoos: Lords of the Middle Border. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Horsman, Reginald. 1967. Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783–1812. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Kappler, Charles J. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Lancaster, Jane F. 1994. Removal Aftershock: The Seminoles’ Struggles to Survive in the West, 1836–1866. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Raffert, Stewart. 1996. The Miami Indians of Indiana: A Persistent People, 1654–1994. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. Remini, Robert V. 2002. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. New York: Penguin. Rogin, Michael Paul. 1975. Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ronda, James P. 2002. “‘We Have a Country’: Race, Geography, and the Invention of Indian Territory.” In Race and the Early Republic: Racial Consciousness and Nation-Building in the Early Republic, Michael A. Morrison and James Brewer Stewart, eds. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Satz, Ronald. 2001. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Satz, Ronald. 2002. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sellers, Charles. 1991. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846. New York: Oxford University Press. Sheehan, Bernard W. 1973. Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Sleeper-Smith, Susan. 2001. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849 Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1999. Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1993. The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill and Wang.

www.abc-clio.com

93

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1973. The American Indian and the United States: A Documentary History, vol. 4. New York: Random House. Young, Mary Elizabeth. 1961. Redskins, Ruffleshirts and Rednecks: Indian Allotments in Alabama and Mississippi, 1830–1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

F F

rom the point of view of U.S. policymakers, Indian reservations were a necessary aspect of American expansion, nationhood, and state building. The creation of reservations, or reserves, aboriginal homelands, or areas indigena, was equally the result of the larger European colonial relationship with indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Whatever they were called, the establishment of these defined, often isolated and greatly compressed indigenous living spaces by means of treaties, agreements, and conventions was a distinct phase in the process of American expansion. Often, reservations were simply the remnants of indigenous homelands. The United States, however, removed a number of Native nations from their homelands to distant territories acquired from other indigenous peoples through treaties. Between 1850 and 1871, when the federal government officially ended the treaty-making process, more than a hundred Native American treaties were ratified, principally to institute some semblance of order on the American frontiers. Most of these were “peace and friendship” treaties concluded to curtail the warfare between the Native peoples who owned the land and the migratory whites who coveted it for themselves. Essentially, the federal negotiators and the governing bodies of the Native American nations mutually agreed that strict boundaries between whites and Indians must be established and maintained before any kind of peace could be realized. Native negotiators were always seeking peace—or, perhaps, the simple absence of war—so that their peoples could enjoy the permanence of a homeland and the security of physically possessing recognized political boundaries. In short, between 1850 and 1871, the United States entered into the phase of colonialism that rested on the ideas of restricting the movements of indigenous peoples, defining the boundaries between the races, and removing any and all obstacles to the placement of European American colonies in the American West.

Reservations As it came to be used in the period, the term reservation applied to nearly every piece of ground occupied by Native nations having formal treaty rela-

tions with the United States. Many of these territories were not, strictly speaking, parts of the U.S. public domain that were “reserved for the use of” Native nations. For example, when the Five Civilized Tribes—the Cherokee, Muscogee Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations—were removed from their traditional homelands in the East, the lands they acquired in the newly established Indian Territory carried titles in fee simple, thus making them relatively well protected from further white encroachment. Many other so-called reservations were in reality greatly diminished homelands that had never become legally a part of the U.S. public domain. Technically, one could argue that Native nations, not the federal government, had by treaty reserved these lands for their own use. Still, as most of the Native nations had concluded some form of diplomatic relations with the United States, the federal government sent agents to the reservations in order to oversee the implementation of treaty provisions and generally to maintain order within their designated areas of responsibility. Agents were also sent as negotiators to the Native nations to acquire more lands. Until 1849, the agents and the implementation of Indian policies were under the bureaucratic control of the U.S. Department of War. Hence, the developing “reservation system” was viewed as a military operation, and in fact many of the agents for years to come were army personnel. The State Department, arguably the agency that should have maintained diplomatic relations with Native nations, had little to do with Indian affairs except to record the final ratified treaties with the tribes. The reservation system itself became a highly bureaucratic and permanent American institution. After 1849, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, most often referred to as the Indian Office, existed under the Department of the Interior. The “Indian Problem” had essentially boiled down to the impossible administrative predicament of securing more space for non-Indian settlement while at the same time maintaining peace with the Native nations that had to survive on increasingly smaller parcels of land. The Indian Office gained greater discretionary authority over Indian affairs during this period and, by way of administrative fiat, began to emphasize subtle variations in policy. For major Indian policy decisions, Congress, the executive branch, and the

95 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

96

Historical Periods

Supreme Court set the agenda and formulated the general approach to Indian affairs. The Indian Office implemented, administered, and evaluated the details of policy and within this particular context was often able to direct or redirect the course of Indian-white relations. From the very outset of European imperialism, numerous individuals advocated the “civilization” and eventual assimilation of Native Americans into the dominant society. George Washington promoted the notion of “civilizing” Indians in his inaugural address. The idea underpinned the reservation system in one important way. Because the Native nations’ land bases were becoming smaller with each new treaty, the Indian Office introduced European American farming methods, livestock production, various home industries such as wool spinning and weaving, and Christianity in the effort to promote “civilization” among the indigenous nations. It was thought that “civilization” and especially its accoutrements—the spinning wheels, livestock, and farm implements—would help Natives survive on what lands they had left. Native peoples, especially on reservations that had been established by treaty, were quickly becoming regarded as “wards” of the U.S. government and, as such, more or less arbitrarily subjected to the caprices of the Indian Office bureaucracy. Ultimately, this system of domestic colonialism deprived Native nations of the ability to experience change on their own terms. The agents enforced cultural and economic changes on the Native peoples so that they could eke out a meager living on their very much smaller domains. Diminished land bases for Native Americans meant, in turn, the opening of more territory for white settlement. White settlement, it was thought, would further encourage civilization and allegiance to the United States among the Native peoples. In this chain of reasoning, the ultimate aim of the reservation system was to fulfill the goal of American Manifest Destiny in as orderly and relatively nonviolent a fashion as possible.

Surplus Lands The opening of more land for white settlement between 1850 and 1871 also paved the way for the “take-off” period in American industrial growth. It opened greater acreage not only to farmers and ranchers but also to the logging and mining industries. Railroads were building, and especially after the Civil War, large grants of the American public

www.abc-clio.com

domain, most often acquired through Native land cessions in treaties, went to subsidize the laying of track. The railroads, in turn, fed off the timber, coal, oil, and steel industries. It is little wonder that many of the treaties signed during the period granted railroad rights-of-way through Indian lands, and in most cases the Indian lands that were acquired by the United States went immediately to subsidize the railroad system without ever having been made a part of the public domain. Between the years 1850 and 1861, a spate of treaties were concluded to open and secure the lands for the United States on the Pacific coast. Throughout the period, gold seekers were pouring into the newly acquired territory of California. From the beginning of the gold rush in 1849, whites had begun an arbitrary but widespread massacre of indigenous populations. The remnants of the California nations that survived the slaughter either fled into isolation to avoid the heavily armed, remorseless, death-dealing whites or sought sanctuary around the old Spanish missions. By 1850, when California was admitted to the Union, most Native leaders would probably have thought it wise to avoid any and all contact with the whites, no matter their intentions. California had been ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and so claimed title by right of conquest. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823), however, the federal government nevertheless recognized that Indians possessed the “right of occupancy” to the land. In consequence, the government sent a three-man commission to California to convince Native Americans to accept the jurisdiction of the federal government and to recognize U.S. sovereignty over California. By January 1852, the commission had negotiated eighteen treaties with 139 Native American bands, towns, confederated groups, and tribal subdivisions. The treaties established reservations and provided for the payment of annuities and the services of teachers and blacksmiths, and promised to provide the Native groups with subsistence in the form of livestock. The negotiations went to naught, however; because the Senate could not grasp the intricacies of California Native sociopolitical organization and because the costs of carrying out the provisions of the treaties were becoming very high, it rejected their ratification. Federal agents were also occupied with negotiating treaties with the tribes of the Oregon and Washington Territories. The main thrust of treaty

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

making in the 1850s actually centered on these two potential states of the Union. In 1848, the United States and Great Britain agreed, after years of dispute, to draw a boundary demarcating the line between the United States and Canada. The U.S. claim to what became the Oregon Territory—the present states of Oregon and Washington—was tenuous. There were several trading posts, both British and American, in the region, but until the 1830s white settlement was relatively insignificant. After 1831, American immigrants began to pour into the Willamette Valley in Oregon and the Columbia River basin in what is now Washington. The United States had no legal claim to the territory—either by right of discovery or by conquest in a just war—but they had the numbers. Eventually, Great Britain bowed to the land-hungry Americans, and in 1850 Congress passed the Oregon Donation Act, establishing a special commission to negotiate with and extinguish the land titles held by the tribes of the Oregon Territory. This commission, although abolished in February 1851, nevertheless negotiated six treaties with several bands of the Kalapuya and Molala nations. The law abolishing the Donation Act commission transferred its duties to the superintendent of Indian affairs. As a result, the Donation Act commission’s treaties were not ratified. Anson Dart, the superintendent, completed at least thirteen treaties with tribes in western Oregon on which the Senate took no action. While Dart’s treaties with the bands of the Tillamook, Clatsop, and Chinook languished in the Senate, the administration and Congress divided the Oregon Territory into the separate territories of Oregon and Washington and gave the power to negotiate with the tribes to the territorial governors.

Unratified Treaties Many of the settlements negotiated with the Native nations of Oregon and Washington, although still arguably valid and thus operable, nevertheless have been relegated to status of “unratified” or “invalid” treaties. The numerous agreements with these tribes signed in 1851 are cases in point. Dart’s treaties of 1851 with the Clatsop, Tillamook, and Chinook bands ceded the entire Willamette Valley of Oregon to the United States. These treaties were negotiated primarily to transfer legally the already whiteoccupied valley to the U.S. public domain. Because of the change in policy directing the governors of Washington and Oregon to negotiate agreements

www.abc-clio.com

97

with the Native nations located in the territories, the Senate did not ratify the Willamette Valley treaties. In 1906, however, Congress wrote a provision into that year’s Indian Appropriation Act authorizing the secretary of the interior to investigate the number of Clatsop, Chinook, and Tillamook people, either signatories of the treaties or their descendants, who were affected by the land cession. In 1851, tribal leaders had negotiated monetary settlements to be paid over the course of ten years. The Native leaders had insisted on the payments because their peoples were in a serious decline as a result of white intrusion and basically did not want the federal government to obtain the land without some kind of exchange or benefit. Because the Senate failed to ratify the treaties, the payments were not forthcoming. During the first years of the twentieth century, the federal government became interested in clarifying both the status of Native peoples under law and the validity of U.S. land claims. On the one hand, the government was attempting to end the reservation system and extract itself from the “Indian business.” On the other, there was a growing interest in protecting what was left of tribal lands so that, as individuals, Native people would possess a level of income that would make their gradual assimilation into American society less abrupt, confusing, and painful. For whatever the reason, Congress prompted a count of the populations of the tribal signatories of the Willamette Valley treaties and in 1913 appropriated $66,000—a sum greater than the original, agreed-upon remuneration—to pay the surviving tribal members for the loss of their lands. This compensatory action proved that even “unratified” treaties could indeed become operable. In the case of the Willamette Valley treaties, both parties—the federal government and the Native nations—mutually agreed to reconstitute the membership of the tribes in order to fulfill the treaties’ stipulations. The treaties were thus “ratified” bilaterally because both sides actually complied with the provisions of these specific conventions. The “unratified” treaties with the Chinook, Tillamook, and Clatsop did not provide the United States with clear title to the rest of Oregon and Washington. Over the span of only two years, sixteen treaties were negotiated and eventually ratified with several other nations of the Northwest. In September 1853, the headmen of the Rogue River peoples signed away a large portion of Oregon Territory, from which they agreed to be removed to another “selected” site at a later date. In the same month, the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

98

Historical Periods

Umpqua of Cow Creek, also in Oregon, gave up another large tract with the provision that a small section of land be “deemed and considered an Indian reserve until a suitable selection shall be made by the direction of the President of the United States for their permanent residence.” In effect, the Umpqua and Rogue River peoples transferred their title to the land to the United States, and a portion was reserved for their temporary use. The very next year, another Umpqua band and the Rogue River leaders were negotiating new treaties. Under the Rogue River treaty of 1854, a portion of the previously reserved land known as the Table Rock reserve was to be put aside as a reservation for the Rogue River people and for other displaced Native bands. The Table Rock land was to be both a reservation and a refuge until the federal government deemed it necessary to remove the people once again. The Rogue River leaders did, however, secure a provision in the new treaty stipulating that, should a future removal take place, the Nation would share individually the $15,000 payment for their lands, as had been secured in the negotiations of the previous year. In the same month, federal agents negotiated a new treaty with the Cave Creek band of the Rogue River people. The new treaty included the Chasta and Scoton tribes and secured a previously unceded stretch of the Rogue River valley and lay along Applegate Creek. The new Umpqua treaty included the confederated Kalapuya peoples’ ceded lands along Calapooia Creek and the Illinois River in Oregon. Like the Rogue River agreement, the treaty provided for a residential reserve and cash remuneration to be paid as annuities. The Chasta of Oregon also negotiated a new treaty in 1854 ceding a large tract of land essentially bordering the lands that had formerly belonged to the Rogue River and Umpqua peoples. Moreover, the Chasta were to be removed to the Rogue River’s Table Rock Reservation. The Chastas were promised $2,000 annually for the next fifteen years for the land; thereafter, their payments would be combined in the Table Rock annuities, of which the Chastas would receive a full share. All the negotiations in Oregon in 1854 contained “civilization” provisions. The Native nations were to receive farm implements, blacksmith services, schoolhouses, medical care, and livestock. The Umpqua treaty furthered the government’s “Indian civilization” policy in another important way. It contained a provision for the allotment of reservation lands at the discretion of the president of the United States. Allotment meant the surveying

www.abc-clio.com

and division of the Umpqua and Kalapuya reserved lands into twenty-, forty-, sixty-, and eighty-acre lots. The lots would be distributed to single males and to families according to the number of immediate members. A single man would receive twenty acres; a family of two would get forty acres; families with three to five members would receive sixty acres; and a family of six or more could claim eighty acres. Families had to work the land, or their allotments would be redistributed to other tribe members. The treaty also stipulated that, when Oregon eventually attained statehood, its legislature could not remove any of the federal restrictions placed on the Indian allotments. Here, in one fell swoop, the federal government attempted to encapsulate the intentions of the “civilization” policy. In the first place, it was thought that the individual or private ownership of property would immediately infuse the allottee with the urge to cultivate the land and thus gain an income. In theory, private property would liberate the allottee from tribal customs and dependence on extended family members and would ultimately promote self-reliance. The preemption of state jurisdiction over the allotments was an equally significant step in the attempt to woo Indians away from their identities as members of separate, sovereign nations. An allottee would, presumably, owe his first allegiance to the federal government as the guarantor of the individual’s real property. Every treaty of the period contained an article that not only established peace but also promised perpetual amity between the signatories. The Native nations that negotiated the treaties literally became protectorates of the United States. As such, their sovereignty, especially in a domestic sense, was not eroded in the least. They did, however, enter into a trust relationship with the United States that has been maintained to this day. Three ratified treaties negotiated in Oregon Territory were concluded in 1855. In January, the Kalapuya nation entered into another treaty with the United States, one that surrendered more lands along the Columbia River to the Cascade Mountains for the sum of $145,000, to be paid in decreasing amounts over a period of twenty years. The following June, the United States concluded a convention with several bands of Walla Walla and the Wasco Nation at The Dalles in Oregon. Not only did the treaty of The Dalles cede more territory to the Americans, but it also secured for the Walla Walla and Wasco the right to fish in “usual and accustomed sta-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

tions.” This provision essentially said that the Walla Walla and Wasco peoples could take fish even outside the boundaries of their assigned reservations. The treaty in December with the Molala nation extinguished the tribe’s “right, title, interest and claim” to the territory bordering the lands surrendered by the Umpqua, Chasta, Scoton, and Rogue River peoples the year before. Except for the Indian reservations, the title to the entire Oregon Territory had shifted to the United States. The Washington Territory treaties were equally extensive in terms of land surrendered in a relatively short period of time. Between December 1854 and July 1855, the Native nations gave up their “right, title, interest and claim” to the land from the northern border with Canada, to Oregon in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Great Plains in the east. The lands around Puget Sound and along the Columbia River were especially desirable. The fishing, the timber, the fine harbors, the access to the Pacific Ocean whaling grounds, and the fertile farmlands were much too valuable to the Americans for them to remain in Indian hands. The titles to the vast tracts of land surrounding Puget Sound were transferred to the United States in five treaties concluded between December 1854 and June 1855. The Medicine Creek convention, signed with the Nisqally, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squaxin S’Homamish, Stehchass, Tapeeksin, Squiaitl, and Sahewamish on December 26, 1854, gave up the southern end of the sound. A month later, the Duwamish, the Suquamish, and several other nations agreed to the Point Elliott treaty, which secured the eastern flank of Puget Sound for the United States to a very great depth. In June 1855 came the Point No Point treaty, by which the Clallam, Twana, and Chemakum ceded the lands west of the Point Elliot treaty, thus giving up nearly all of the Olympic Peninsula. The rest of the peninsula was secured in the Neah Bay treaty of June 1855 with the Makah, and the Quinault River treaty of July 1855 with the Quinault, Queets, Hoh, and Quileute peoples. These treaties contained provisions under which the Native nations pledged eternal friendship with the United States and promised not to harbor anyone suspected of breaking the law. The Point Elliot treaties, for example, stipulated that, should any Indian “violate this pledge” and harm an American citizen in any way, the tribe’s annuities would be used to compensate the victims. In essence, the Native nations agreed to become protectorates of the United States and assume liability for the actions of their citizens. Fed-

www.abc-clio.com

99

eral agents, however, were given the power to judge whether or not American “depredation” claims against the tribes were “satisfactorily proven.” Hence, while the Native nations were asserting the sovereign capacity to enter into protectorate status and take up the responsibility for the actions of their peoples, the Americans were assuming an extensive political jurisdiction over the tribes. In June 1855, several Native nations and the United States negotiated three treaties at Camp Stevens in the Walla Walla valley. The Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla peoples concluded an agreement whereby, in exchange for $100,000, they ceded a large tract of land in Washington and agreed to be moved to a reservation. These confederated nations were to remove to a reservation chosen by the president of the United States, which was to be surveyed for allotment when the president deemed it in the best interests of the Indians to do so. In separate treaties, the Yakima and Nez Perce agreed to nearly the same stipulations. In July, at Hell Gate in the Bitterroot Valley, the Flathead, Kutenai, and Pend d’Oreille Nations surrendered most of the western half of the territory and agreed to move onto smaller reservations within their former national boundaries. Almost the entire territory of the future state of Washington was in the hands of the United States. Except for a few provisions dealing with reservation boundaries and amounts of money pledged to the tribes, the treaties negotiated in Washington Territory were all very similar in wording and in form. Treaties in the 1850s were becoming more or less standardized. All of the Washington Territory and a few of the Oregon treaties, however, provided that the Native nations would retain the right to fish in their usual and accustomed “stations” or “grounds” and even to set up buildings in these places to cure the catch and house the fishermen during the seasonal fish or whale migrations. The Native negotiators essentially secured the right to fish even outside the boundaries of their reservations. These fishing rights, guaranteed by treaty with the United States, would later become a long-drawnout battle between the Native nations and the state of Washington. In the end, the treaties superseded state fish and game regulations, thereby conceding a degree of Native sovereignty. While a number of officials were sedulously seeking to open up the territories of Oregon and Washington, others were equally preoccupied with securing the land routes over which the whites would come in droves to the northwest coast and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

100

Historical Periods

California. One of the first of these was the Navajo (spelled Navaho in the original document) treaty of 1849. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Native nations of the Southwest were specifically placed under the “exclusive jurisdiction and protection” of the United States. The Navajo treaty, one of “peace and friendship,” ceded no land and established no reservation but bound the Navajo Nation to the U.S. laws governing the trade and intercourse between Indian and American citizens. For the purposes of enforcing these laws, the Navajo Nation was subjected to a jurisdictional annexation to New Mexico Territory. The annexation meant that the Navajos were to repatriate American and Mexican captives and return all property taken in raids. The Navajo were also to deliver to the authorities of New Mexico Territory the murderer or murderers, presumably Navajo, of one Micente Garcia. According to the reasoning at the time, the United States by right of conquest took the territory from Mexico. Presumably, the Spanish had secured legitimate title to the land of the American Southwest either by way of conquest or by right of discovery, according to the established European means of acquiring new lands. Mexico gained the title from Spain when it rebelled and became an independent state. On the other hand, U.S. negotiators nevertheless realized that the Navajo Nation, like the Native peoples of California, had, at minimum, a right of occupancy to their lands. In consequence, federal agents negotiated a “free and safe passage through the territory of the aforesaid Indians” so that white immigrants might traverse northern New Mexico Territory in route to California. The treaty also stipulated that a string of military posts be established “to afford protection to all the people and interests of the contracting parties.” The right of occupancy also elicited the agreement that the federal government would “at its earliest convenience, designate, settle and adjust” the boundaries of the Navajo national domain. “Free-passage” treaties were negotiated with the Apache in 1852 and with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache (Plains) in 1853. The former treaty was signed at Santa Fe, New Mexico Territory. It established peace and, to enforce the safe passage of whites and maintain order, contained a provision whereby the Apache agreed to the erection of U.S. military posts in their country. They also approved the stipulation that all cases of aggression by whites against them and their property would be referred to

www.abc-clio.com

U.S. military authority. It was thought, perhaps, that the assumption of U.S. jurisdiction over all white crimes would end the almost constant state of war between white immigrants and the Apache. The Comanche-Kiowa-Apache treaty of the next year was signed at Fort Atkinson in the Indian Territory. These Native nations agreed to end warfare, both between themselves and against the United States. They agreed, as did the Apache in the Santa Fe treaty, to forgo incursions into Mexico and restore captives to both the Mexican government and the United States. The treaty also carried a free-passage clause and bound the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache to a provision that called for the laying out of permanent roads through their territories. The Native nations agreed to the erection of military posts and to refer cases of white criminality to military authorities. The pressing need on the part of the United States to ensure the passage of immigrants to the West Coast led to the demand for the Native nations to surrender more land in what would become the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and especially Kansas. The list of treaties with the tribes of these areas was remarkably long. Native nations that had been removed from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan and as far away as New York to the “permanent Indian frontier”—a space that roughly covered what today is southern Nebraska and all of Kansas and Oklahoma—were forced to reduce their landholdings once again to tiny reservations or move south into Indian Territory. These land cessions affected the land bases of the Seneca, Delaware, Miami, Mdewakanton, Wahpakoota, Sisseton, and Wahpeton Sioux, Wyandot, Sac and Fox, Oto and Missouri, Shawnee, Omaha, and Iowa Nations. The Miami, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, Chippewa, Winnebago, and Ottawa Nations also surrendered huge amounts of territory, all with the promise of annuity payments, the protection of the federal government, and, most importantly, peace. The list of unratified treaties that attempted to reduce Native landholdings to the bare minimum and institute peace all along the American frontier was equally lengthy. Some of these treaties were negotiated with nations that had never before dealt with the Americans. Others were stopgap agreements made to quell violence either immediately or until more comprehensive conventions could be worked out. A number of these treaties could, in fact, contain provisions that might be operable simply because Congress has referred to them in other

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

treaties or in making appropriations to fulfill one or another promise made to Native nations. The Fort Laramie treaty of 1851, like the Navajo treaty of 1849, stands out in this period because it did not call for a land cession on the part of the Native nations. Basically, it was a peace concord that defined the national boundaries of several indigenous peoples of the northern plains. The Sioux, Gros Ventre, Mandan, Arikara, Assiniboine, Blackfeet, Crow, Cheyenne, and Arapaho Nations all participated in the negotiations and agreed not only to the stipulated national borders but also to the building of roads and military posts within these boundaries. Ostensibly, the roads were for the free and safe passage of white immigrants on the trail to the West Coast, and the military posts were erected in order to protect both Indians and whites from each other’s potential depredations. The federal government, in compensation, was to pay the Native nations $50,000 a year for fifty years “for their maintenance and the improvement of their moral and social customs.”

Land Payments Probably because no land cession was agreed to in the Fort Laramie treaty, Congress did not pass on it without altering one of its most important provisions. Congress essentially decreased the fifty annual payments to ten, with another five to be paid at the discretion of the president. This sum of money was hardly enough to aid the nearly fifty thousand members of the several Native nations involved in the negotiations; from the point of view of the Native leaders, it was a serious breach of the agreement they had made. The congressional amendment made the treaty’s standing hazy at best, even in the eyes of the whites. Charles J. Kappler, in his 1904 compilation of treaties, stated that the Fort Laramie treaty was “never ratified or printed.” It was nevertheless valid even in its altered form, and the Native nations, although they voiced concern over the changes made, complied with its provisions. Four years later, however, some of the Native nations involved in the Fort Laramie treaty, as well as some of those engaged in making agreements with federal agents in Washington Territory, were once again at the negotiating table. The Blackfeet Nation (consisting of, and so recognized by the United States, the Piegan, Blood, and Blackfeet proper); the Gros Ventre from east of the Rocky Mountains; and the Flathead, Upper Pend d’Oreille, Kutenai, and Nez Perce from the west side of the

www.abc-clio.com

101

range worked out a new and detailed treaty in 1855. In format much like most of the treaties of the period, the Blackfeet agreement was intended to settle territorial boundaries and maintain order along the northern immigrant trail to Washington Territory. Peace and friendship were declared between the United States and the Native nations as well as between each one of the signatory Native peoples. The Native parties to the treaty also agreed to cease hostilities, except in self-defense, with the Crow, Assiniboine, Cree, Snake (Shoshone), and several Lakota bands. The Blackfeet consented once again to their national boundaries, as had been “recognized and defined by the treaty of Laramie,” even though Congress had amended the 1851 convention almost to the point of invalidity. Perhaps the main point of the Blackfeet treaty was to secure a common hunting ground for the various signatories and to allow whites both to live in and to pass through the large Blackfeet Nation domain. No other tribes were allowed to establish permanent settlements; each Native nation would be allowed to enter the Blackfeet Nation only to use it as a common for the taking of buffalo, and for other purposes only by way of certain designated points of entry. Although the Assiniboine Nation was not party to the treaty, it was specifically mentioned as one of the groups with hunting rights within Blackfeet territory. The treaty went on to stipulate that all Indians were to stay in their respective lands except when on hunting forays. The treaty allowed for the construction of roads “of every description” and the establishment of telegraph lines and military posts. U.S. citizens were allowed the free navigation of all streams and rivers and the permanent use of land, timber, and other natural resources for the erection of “agencies, missions, schools, farms, shops, mills, stations, and for any other purpose for which they may be required.” For the effective opening of the Blackfeet Nation to American colonization, the Blackfeet, Piegan, Blood, and Gros Ventre were to receive $20,000 annually for a period of twenty years. The president, however, could increase the annuity to $35,000 should circumstance warrant the increase. The main thrust of treaty making during the 1850s was to acquire more land and thereby gain political efficacy within the territory claimed by the United States as its national domain. Underlying the acquisition of control over Native territories were strategies calculated to smooth over the hostilities aroused when Native Americans were displaced or

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

102

Historical Periods

confined to smaller tracts of land. One such strategy was the introduction to Native peoples of the concept of private property by way of allotment in severalty. For example, in 1858 the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux penned a treaty in Washington, D.C., that agreed to new reservation boundaries and to having them surveyed with the intent of dividing the reservation into individually owned, eighty-acre plots. The ultimate reason for the acceptance of this new treaty was simply that the U.S. Senate reneged on the Sisseton-Wahpeton agreement of 1851. The Senate unilaterally struck the provision in the treaty of 1851 that set apart a large tract of land for the Sisseton-Wahpeton on the Minnesota River, and instead offered a sum of money “at the rate of ten cents per acre” to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Nation. Other than providing excuses for amending the treaty of 1851, the new convention provided for the same lands to be allotted, which in turn considerably reduced Sisseton-Wahpeton landholdings. Individual tribe members, instead of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Nation, were to hold the land.

Addenda Treaties The federal government negotiated no fewer than five treaties or addenda to treaties with the Muscogee Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw in the 1850s. These tribes had been forcibly removed from their homelands in the southeastern United States to the Indian Territory (present Oklahoma) in the 1830s. Not all their tribe members, however, had made the trip. A large number of Choctaws remained in Mississippi, and the Chickasaws had not ceded a four-mile-square parcel of land in Tennessee to the United States. The removal of the Seminole Nation from Florida had started a costly war, and even as late as the 1850s, small bands of Mikasuki Seminoles were still living in the Florida backcountry and fighting American soldiers. In 1852, the Chickasaw entered into negotiations with the federal government, primarily to settle several of the tribe’s claims to particular lands. Additionally, the cost of the Chickasaw removal had far exceeded the funds allocated for the purpose. The treaty of 1852 was intended to clear up the cost of removal, to clear the title of Chickasaw lands that had not been ceded east of the Mississippi River, and to address the allegations of corruption that had resulted in the override of Chickasaw removal funds. The Chickasaw Nation agreed to forgo claims to territories in the east for money to be held in trust

www.abc-clio.com

by the United States, provided that the secretary of the interior audit the Chickasaw account “from time to time.” The Chickasaws would have the “privilege” to review the audit and submit objections to it within a reasonable amount of time. The cost to the United States was ultimately quite low. The fourmile-square parcel in Tennessee, for example, which had been originally set apart as a reservation under the provisions of the Chickasaw treaty of 1818, was to be purchased at a rate of no more than “one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre.” Two years later, the Chickasaws were back at the negotiating table. When removal took place, the Chickasaw and Choctaw were effectively placed together on one large piece of land that made up most of what would become southern Oklahoma. The Chickasaw and Choctaw leaders more or less agreed to this circumstance, very likely because they recognized that, since they were culturally and linguistically tied, the two nations were once one. By 1854, however, the jurisdictional lines between the two peoples had become unclear. The United States was brought into the dispute over the ChickasawChoctaw boundaries, and a new treaty was negotiated. Essentially, the two nations agreed to draw a line between themselves: the Chickasaw jurisdiction was established in the western half of the territory, the Choctaw in the east. The dispute did not end, and the very next year the Chickasaw and the Choctaw agreed to a redrawing of the boundaries between the two nations and to lease their lands west of longitude 98° to the United States. The two nations separated completely. The Choctaw received a sum of money out of Chickasaw funds and ceded all of the land west of 100° longitude. The nations agreed to the establishment of military forts and roads and to railroad and telegraph rights-of-way. Similar jurisdictional and national disputes had arisen between the Creek and the Seminole. The United States was still attempting to remove the remnants of the Seminole Nation in Florida to the Indian Territory. Those Seminole who had been forcibly removed were moved, again because of linguistic and cultural ties, onto the lands of the Muscogee Creek Nation. The Creek treaty of 1856 essentially ceded a tract of land to the Seminole. A sovereign Seminole Nation was thus established in the hope of getting the Seminole in Florida to cease hostilities and migrate to the Indian Territory. The Seminole Nation West, as it was called, would send a delegation to Florida “to do all in their power to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

induce their brethren remaining [in Florida] to emigrate and join them in the west.” The usual concessions to the railroads, military posts, roads, and telegraph services were also made. The effort to “induce” the Florida Seminole to remove was not successful. While some Seminole did, indeed, migrate west after the treaty of 1856, the core of the Mikasuki Seminole in the east remained in Florida to this day. By the end of March 1861, the United States had succeeded in securing the title to nearly all of its claimed territory west of the Mississippi River. Save for a very large tract of land recognized as “the Great Sioux Nation” on the northern plains, most of the Indian Territory (present Oklahoma), a very large portion of New Mexico Territory, and smaller reservations dotting the land, the Americans now held all of what would become the continental United States. The Cheyenne and Arapaho had ceded eastern Colorado in February of 1861, and on March 6, the united Sauk and Fox and Iowa Nations gave up title to most of Iowa and parts of Nebraska.

Confederate Treaties All of the great land cessions of the 1850s contributed fuel to the oncoming holocaust of the American Civil War. The opening of the entire West Coast, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and much of New Mexico Territory meant the possibility of bringing in several states into the union. Most of these territories, in accordance with several legal compromises, would not become slave-holding states. Southern politicians, of course, saw the organization of states such as Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas as a threat to their continued power in Congress, to their economic systems, and to their sectional culture, all of which were built on chattel slavery. When the Civil War broke out in April 1861, the newly formed Confederate States actively began to seek Native American allies. The Confederacy was especially interested in the Indian Territory, which could serve as a buffer between Union Kansas and Confederate Texas, and with the mineral-rich New Mexico and Arizona territories. Albert Pike, whose complete title was commissioner of the Confederate States to the Indians west of Arkansas, negotiated nine treaties with twenty-one Native nations, at four different locations. All of the tribes with which Pike negotiated with were located at the time in the Indian Territory.

www.abc-clio.com

103

The first Confederate treaties were negotiated with the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw in North Fork Town on the Canadian River in the Creek Nation. The Creek treaty, although concluded on July 10, 1861, nevertheless referred to the Seminole treaty of August 7 of the same year in order to clarify the exact boundaries and jurisdictions of both nations. A supplementary article was added to the convention to address the claims of the Apalachicola band. Under two previous treaties with the United States, the Apalachicola still had reserves of land in Florida. The Confederacy acknowledged their claims and agreed to pay for the claims and the property the Apalachicola lost in their removal to the Indian Territory. Remnants of the Apalachicola still living in Florida would be encouraged to move west and reunite with their kinsmen as part of the larger Creek Nation. In the same supplement, the Seminole were guaranteed payments for their lost property and land in Florida “in consequence of their hurried removal west.” The Choctaw and Chickasaw signed a single treaty with the Confederacy. Concluded on July 12, the treaty was lengthy and detailed. It contained more than sixty articles, many of which focused on clearing up the financial arrangements of land sales and annuities. The Confederate government in Richmond essentially took on the U.S. debt to, and assumed the federal trust responsibility for, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw. Moreover, the Confederacy agreed to pay the Chickasaw close to $700,000 as reimbursement for funds invested by the United States in the state bonds of Maryland, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, and Arkansas and in stocks issued by the Richmond and Danville railroad and the Nashville and Chattanooga railroad. The Seminole treaty was agreed to in August at the Seminole Council House, and the Confederate Cherokee convention was concluded in October at Park Hill, Cherokee Nation. The Confederacy had thus made binding agreements with all of the socalled Five Civilized Tribes, establishing itself as the protector of the Indian nations. All these treaties offered the Native nations a good deal more than the Union promised. Native soldiers, who were to be equipped by the South, would not have to fight except in defense of their own territory. The Confederacy would assume all of the Union’s debts and annuity payments, in addition to a permanent allocation to pay for certain services, such as schools, insane asylums, health care, and orphanages. The Native nations were also given the option of sending

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

104

Historical Periods

delegates to the Confederate House of Representatives. Most importantly, perhaps, was that the Confederacy pledged its protection from invasion and affirmed each nation’s title to its lands in fee simple. The negotiations at Park Hill produced Confederate treaties with the Osage, confederated Seneca and Shawnee, and Quapaw Nations. Like the treaties made with the Five Tribes, these agreements were somewhat formulaic. The treaties guaranteed annuities, the services of teachers, blacksmiths, and landholdings. The Confederacy also agreed to supply the tribes with arms to be used in their selfprotection. The same kinds of guarantees were given in treaties to a number of Native groups in the western Indian Territory, including the Comanche, Wichita, Caddo, Waco, Tawakoni, Anadarko, Tonkawa, and western Shawnee and Delaware tribes. Confederate agents obtained an agreement with the Comanche of the Staked Plains to offer a treaty of friendship with the Kiowa, in order to stop completely raids into Texas. On the surface, the Confederate treaties promised a remarkably peaceful settlement for most of the Native nations living in or near what is now Oklahoma. The Confederate treaties not only established friendship between the nations and the Confederacy but also between all the Native treaty signatories. Each treaty contained an oath of “perpetual peace and brotherhood” with all the Native nations that made treaties with the Confederacy. The Comanche swore not to raid other Native nations; Cherokee and Osage pledged to end long years of animosity; the Wichita promised to live in peace and forgive those tribes that had threatened them in the past. The Confederacy presumably obtained the safety of its largest state, Texas, and opened the rest of the Southwest for Confederate expansion. The Confederate-initiated peace in the Indian Territory, however, was not to be. Before the ink was dry on the treaties, Creeks and Seminoles loyal to the Union attempted to escape to Kansas, and numerous Cherokee began to doubt the wisdom of allying themselves with the South. Eventually, fighting erupted between loyal and Confederate Indians all over the territory. All-Indian regiments were raised for both the Union and the Confederacy. These military units were even to go into combat outside the territorial limits of the Native nations. The promise that the nations would not have to fight unless in defense of their own country was quickly made moot. Union and Confederate invasions from Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas left the Indian Territory

www.abc-clio.com

devastated. And the fighting continued there even after the surrender at Appomattox. Predictably, war fever engulfed the western territories and states and led to the inflicting of barbarous cruelties on the Native nations. War broke out in Minnesota between the whites and the Santee Sioux. Instead of attempting to use diplomacy, which perhaps could have averted the Santee war, the whites treated genuine Santee complaints as acts of rebellion, eventually trying and convicting many of the Santee men in a military court. California militiamen stormed into Arizona and New Mexico seeking rebels, only to set off a lengthy war with the Apaches and Navajos. The old scout Kit Carson was enlisted to carry on a frightful roundup of the Navajo, which led to their imprisonment at Fort Sumner. In 1864, the Colorado Volunteers attacked and slaughtered the Cheyenne at Sand Creek, notwithstanding the fact that the Cheyenne were peacefully living on the lands guaranteed to them in their 1861 treaty with the United States. The horror of the Sand Creek massacre produced a period of general conflict between the Native nations of the Great Plains and the Union. From a certain perspective, agents of the United States were indeed attempting to ease the tensions with several Native nations during the war and trying to deal with them diplomatically. The federal government negotiated and ratified eighteen treaties during the war. Between March 1862 and March 1865, exactly three years, treaties were concluded with the Kansa, Ottawa, Chippewa, Nez Perce, Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, Modoc, Omaha, Winnebago, and Ponca Nations. All these agreements included land cessions and further diminished the territories of the tribes involved. Several established “permanent” reservations or removed the nations to smaller concentrations of landholdings. Despite its focus on winning the Civil War, the United States was nevertheless still very much involved in securing title to new lands in the West. When the fighting between the whites ended, the United States simply resumed its avowed conquest of the western territories, with a side trip to renegotiate treaties with the nations that had signed on with the Confederacy. The United States extracted a heavy price from the nations that signed Confederate treaties, even though large factions within the tribes had repudiated them and had served in Union regiments. The Osage were forced to cede most of their large reservation and confine themselves to the Indian Territory. For the land ces-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

sion, they were to receive the proceeds of the sale of their lands in Kansas and Missouri, from which the federal government established a fund to build boarding schools. Portions of Osage land were to be directly handed over in fee simple to several individuals. Certain chiefs and mixed-blood citizens of the Osage Nation were awarded direct payments of Osage funds and grants of land. The Osage put themselves under the protectorship of the United States and agreed to be removed from the ceded lands within a six-month period of time. The federal government also extracted railroad rights-of-way through Osage country. Finally, the Osage submitted to a new kind of treaty provision that stated, “Should the Senate reject or amend any of the above articles, such rejection or amendment shall not affect the other provisions of this treaty.” The Senate, in other words, could change the treaty as it liked, whereas the Osage were bound to the agreement no matter what.

Reconstruction Treaties The Five Civilized Tribes each agreed to reconstruction treaties that not only ceded territory but also gave up land for the resettlement of Native nations from Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri. The Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole agreed to abolish slavery and admit the freed slaves to citizen status within their respective nations. The new treaties gave away railroad rights-of-way but promised the nations that white intruders would be removed from their territorial boundaries. The Cherokee treaty of 1866 was perhaps the most comprehensive of the several “reconstruction” treaties. It first contained a provision declaring the Confederate treaty of 1861 null and void, even though the Cherokees had already repudiated it in 1863. Notwithstanding this repudiation, the United States argued that the previously existing Cherokee treaties were nevertheless insufficient. A portion of the Cherokee Nation was set aside for former slaves and for free blacks who had resided in the Cherokee prior to the Civil War, who individually could take 160-acre plots should they desire to move there within a span of two years. This land, however, was not to be “set apart until it shall be found that the Canadian district is not sufficiently large to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each person desiring to obtain settlement under the provisions of this article.” The residents of this reserve-within-a-reserve were enabled to elect their own local officers and

www.abc-clio.com

105

judges and to have representation in the Cherokee national government. A U.S. court was to be established in the Indian Territory “nearest to the Cherokee Nation” and was to have jurisdiction over all matters civil and criminal involving whites and blacks. The Cherokee court system retained jurisdiction in Cherokee cases only. The Cherokee were also required to take a census of the nation and to participate in an Indian Territory-wide general council in order to regulate intercourse between the Indian nations and with the “colonies of freemen resident in said Territory.” The federal government obtained the agreement from the Cherokee to resettle “civilized” Indians in the Cherokee Nation and admit them as citizens (a Delaware and a Shawnee band eventually were so settled). More Cherokee land was to be ceded for the future resettlement of several “friendly” Native nations. The idea of resettling “friendly” Native nations in the Indian Territory marked the beginning of a new round of Indian removal that would continue well into the 1870s, with the relocation of the Ponca, the Pawnee, and numerous other Native nations that had surrendered their lands in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and as far away as New York and Oregon. The years between 1865 and 1868 produced a very long list of Native American treaties with the United States, some ratified, some simply set aside until more comprehensive agreements could be made. Four unratified but very important treaties that fitted the category of stopgap measures were the covenants that ended the Civil War in the Indian Territory. On June 19, 1865, the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, Peter Pitchlynn, agreed to cease “acts of hostility” against the United States, and four days later, Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie, who also had taken the title of principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, agreed to do the same. The Chickasaw Nation capitulated on July 14. In September, Union negotiators arranged what was in effect an armistice between Union forces and Confederate and Union Indians in the Indian Territory. Emissaries from the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Osage, Seminole, Seneca, Shawnee, Quapaw, and Euchee peoples essentially agreed to accept protectorate status under the United States and end any acts of aggression between themselves. That these treaties were not ratified was very likely due to the fact that these groups were seen as combat units rather than as Native nations. Thus, the treaties were thought to be more akin to the surren-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

106

Historical Periods

ders of the individual Confederate armies under Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and Edmund Kirby Smith. Military leaders, especially those acting in rebellion against the United States, were not heads of state authorized to conduct formal international relations. Most of the unratified treaties of 1865, 1866, and 1867 were measures under which Native nations surrendered title to vast territories in the West. This round of treaty making was also an effort on the part of the United States to restore its claim to authority over the relations with Native nations. All the Native nations were doubtless aware of the terrible internecine struggle the Americans had just fought and were probably willing to deal with the winner in order to restore orderly relationships with the whites. These treaties, especially those made with the Paiute, Shoshone, Crow, several bands of the Apache, the Arikara, Mandan and Hidatsa, the Assiniboine, the Brule and Oglala bands of Lakota, and the Bannock, were very likely either not even submitted for ratification or had been made by unauthorized military personnel seeking an immediate end to hostilities or by those seeking to earn a measure of fortune or fame for negotiating the surrender of large tracts of Native lands. Several agreements in the period also went unratified for the same reasons, because they were superseded by subsequent negotiations at the level of formal treaties, or because they were simply nullified by certain events. War was the event that certainly voided most of the agreements and treaties, ratified or not, with several Native nations of the Great Plains and the Southwest. The Apache were embroiled in a continuous war of attrition for their mineral-rich lands in Arizona and New Mexico territories that ultimately would last until the 1880s. The numerous agreements and ratified treaties made with the individual bands of the Lakota Nation, the Yanktonai, the northern and southern branches of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations, the Kiowa, Plains Apache, and Comanche in 1865 were but interludes of diplomacy in a lengthy conflict that began with the massacre at Sand Creek and engulfed all of the peoples of the Great Plains. Because of the continuing violence, Congress created the United States Indian Peace Commission on June 20, 1867. The “Great Peace Commission,” headed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Nathaniel G. Taylor and including famous Civil

www.abc-clio.com

War generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Alfred Terry, negotiated two of the most significant treaties on the Great Plains: the treaties of Medicine Lodge in 1867 and Fort Laramie in 1868. Neither treaty ended the conflict completely. Their very existence, however, ultimately led to the end of formal treaty making altogether. In a very real sense, the Native nations involved in these treaties negotiated from a position of relative strength, something that the United States was not ready to countenance. The general warfare on the southern plains was a series of strikes and counterstrikes conducted by the United States and the southern branches of the Cheyenne and Arapaho and the Kiowa, Plains Apache, and Comanche. The Cheyenne Dog Soldiers had carried on an effective hit-and-run campaign against numerous civilian and military targets. The Kiowa and Comanche went on joint raids into Texas and New Mexico and, in the view of American officials, were severely disrupting trade and immigration routes. Although there were a few pitched battles, mostly between small parties of whites and Natives, by and large the war on the Southern Plains between 1865 and 1867 was a costly, confusing, and bitter period of guerrilla warfare. The American press was continually calling for an end to Indian depredations. The army could not find and defeat the tribes in decisive battle, but the continued conflict had begun to wear the Native leaders down. When the Great Peace Commission proposed a meeting that would secure peace at Medicine Lodge Creek in Kansas, many of the Native leaders came with high expectations. Actually, three treaties were negotiated at Medicine Lodge. The first was with the Kiowa and Comanche. Basically, the price of peace was confinement to a relatively large reservation in southwestern Indian Territory and the withdrawal of opposition to the construction of roads and rail lines into Colorado and New Mexico. Heads of families could select tracts of land not exceeding 320 acres to engage in agricultural pursuits, the boundaries of which would be recorded in the “Kiowa and Comanche land book.” The issuance of farming implements, the services of a blacksmith and a physician, and the establishment of reservations schools were promised. Two important provisions in the treaty would eventually become causes for renewed conflicts, one resulting in open warfare and the second in a famous court case.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871

In Article 11 of the treaty, the Kiowa and Comanche retained the right to hunt the territory south of the Arkansas River “so long as the buffalo may range thereon.” With the building of roads and rail lines, immigrant whites, the army, and sportsmen came to these hunting grounds in droves. The great slaughter of the herds had already begun by the time the Native leaders signed the Medicine Lodge agreements. Then, in 1871, a Pennsylvania tannery discovered that bison hides had commercial value. The hides could be used not only for the manufacture of leather goods but also as belting for machinery. Commercial buffalo hunting soon became a leading industry in the West. The Kiowa and Comanche saw the slaughter as a violation of their guaranteed right to hunt, and a war to save the buffalo broke out. It would last until well into the 1870s. Article 12 of the treaty provided that no further cession of Kiowa-Comanche land could be made without the agreement of three-fourths of the male population of the tribes. When, thirty years later, the federal government moved to allot the KiowaComanche Reservation, leaving surplus land to be set aside for white settlement, no three-fourths majority tribal consent was sought or obtained. A lawsuit, launched on behalf of Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, argued that allotment was in violation of Article 12 of the treaty. The Supreme Court, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, decided in 1903 that Congress had plenary authority over the tribes and could therefore abrogate unilaterally the provisions of a prior convention. The second Treaty of Medicine Lodge was effectively an act of union between the Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache. The Apache agreed to join the Kiowa and Comanche on the reservation and to abide by the same provisions of their comprehensive convention. The third Treaty of Medicine Lodge enjoined the southern Cheyenne and Arapahos to abide by nearly the same provisions as the Kiowa and Comanche but confined them to an area immediately to the north of the Kiowa-ComancheApache Reservations. War on the northern plains centered on a Lakota-led campaign against the illegally occupied military forts along the Bozeman trail in Montana. Under the Oglala leader Red Cloud, the alliance consisting of all of the Lakota bands plus the Yanktonai and Santee Sioux and the northern branches of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations soundly defeated

www.abc-clio.com

107

the U.S. Army and forced its withdrawal from the forts. Like the Native nations of the southern plains, the Lakota and Cheyenne had disrupted the building of the railroad through Nebraska. When the whites began to invade the Powder River country and erect the forts, however, the alliance launched an all-out and decisive campaign. The army’s withdrawal prompted the call to diplomacy and the peace conference at Fort Laramie in 1868. Again, three treaties were signed. The first was with the Lakota bands, the Yanktonai, the Santee, and the Arapaho. The Great Peace Commission’s treaties were remarkably formulaic, worded nearly the same as those signed at Medicine Lodge except for the detailed boundaries of the new Great Sioux Nation in the Dakotas. The Crow Nation, although an enemy of the Lakota-led alliance, signed the second treaty, which established their present reservation in Montana. The Northern Arapaho and Cheyenne penned a separate treaty in which they agreed to relinquish all land claims outside the southern Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation in Indian Territory, and lands were set aside for them in the Lakota Reservations. The Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations, in short, were left with little choice except to live either with their southern cousins or with their Lakota allies. Later, the northern Arapahos would be moved to a reservation shared with their former enemies, the Shoshone, and the Cheyenne would be removed to the Indian Territory. Four more ratified treaties were signed in 1868, with the Ute, Cherokee, Navajo, Shoshone-Bannock, and Nez Perce nations. In effect, they were the last treaties of their kind. In 1871, the House of Representatives added a proviso to the Indian Appropriations Act that ended the practice of treaty making with Native nations. Tom Holm References and Further Reading Brown, Dee. 1970. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cohen, Felix. 1958. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Originally published 1942. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy, Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979. 2 vols. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle. 1983. American Indians, American Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

108

Historical Periods

Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2., Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Kickingbird, Kirk, et al. 1980. Indian Treaties. Washington, DC: Institute for the Development of Indian Law.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and Cases. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company Law Publishers. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation A Statutory History of Federal Indian Policy

A A

s important as treaties are in the history of federal Indian policy, they are second in importance to the statutes enacted by Congress. Statutes, rather than treaties, have come to define the scope of tribal authorities and immunities and the rights of individual Indians. We know that statutes supersede treaties in importance from two pertinent facts. First, every treaty between the United States and the Indian tribes has been broken. Second, the way Congress breaks a treaty with an Indian tribe is by enacting a statute to that effect. Although it may seem odd that a treaty can be done away with so easily, the Supreme Court has held squarely that Congress has the power to break an Indian treaty unilaterally (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903). The only legal issue of interest regarding the breaking of Indian treaties in any particular case is whether Congress actually intended to do so (e.g., United States v. Dion, 1986). Federal Indian policy has been defined primarily by statute from the beginning. An early order of business for the first Congress was the enactment of the first Trade and Intercourse Act (1 Stat. 137, 1790), which forbade transactions affecting Indian land if Congress had not approved the transaction. The act limited the tribes’ authority to dispose of their property. Subsequent Trade and Intercourse Acts defined federal policy in the years following the adoption of the Constitution. The federal government alone would treat with the tribes, acquiring tribal land for the growing American nation while reserving land for the ongoing needs of the tribes within the territory of the United States. The era of forced removal of tribes from the East, South, and Midwest also was defined by a congressional statute. The Indian Removal Act (4 Stat. 411, 1830) set the policy. The removal treaties affected the congressional policy, and many tribes were moved west. With the congressionally mandated end of treaty making in 1871 (16 Stat. 566, 1871), statutes became ever more important in defining Indian rights. By 1885, for example, Congress had taken to itself the authority to subject Indians to federal court criminal processes for crimes committed by Indians against other Indians, regardless of the local law of

the tribe. The Major Crimes Act (23 Stat. 385, 1985) marked the first time Congress had unilaterally extended federal criminal jurisdiction over crimes by and against Indians. It was in this post-treaty era that the “plenary power” of Congress over Indians and their property was first articulated by the Supreme Court. Decades of failed tribal efforts to prevent encroachment on their homelands had left the Indians confined to reservations and unable to practice their traditional subsistence. They were left utterly dependent on the rations and supplies that had been promised in the various treaties. Ironically, the Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, cited this tribal dependence on the United States as the source of Congress’s power over the tribes: These Indian Tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States, dependent largely for their daily food; dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal government with them, and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises a duty of protection, and with it the power. The power of the general government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. It must exist in that government, because it has never existed anywhere else; because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States; because it has never been denied; and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the Tribes. (United States v. Kagama, 1886, pp. 383–385) Having had its power confirmed by the Court, Congress put its power to use in the Dawes General Allotment Act (26 Stat. 794, 1887). The Dawes Act was the next of the defining statutes that established federal policy for decades. The dependence and poverty of the tribes, combined with their often-vast reservations, led Congress to believe that the most

109 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

110

Historical Periods

beneficent policy toward Indians was to convert them into yeoman farmers and herders, to unsettle them from their tribal relations, and to bring nonIndian settlers among them to teach them the American agricultural way of life (Prucha 1984, 659–671). To that end, Congress authorized the president, in all cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation created for their use, “. . . whenever in his opinion any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon” (24 Stat. 388). Individual Indians were to receive from the tribal domains individual parcels of land for their use as farms and ranches. These allotted parcels were to be held in trust by the United States for a period of twenty-five years, during which the Indian owners were expected to become self-sufficient farmers and ranchers. Upon the expiration of the trust period, they would receive patents in fee. After receiving their patents in fee, Indians were to “have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside” (24 Stat. 390). The tribal lands remaining after eligible Indians had received their allotments were to be opened for settlement by non-Indians. Significantly, the opening of lands for non-Indian settlement was to be accomplished by negotiation with the tribes. The secretary of the interior was authorized to negotiate with the tribes for the purchase of their reservation lands “in conformity with the treaty or statute under which such reservation is held” and “on such terms and conditions as shall be considered just and equitable between the United States and said tribe of Indians” (24 Stat. 389). The agreements negotiated by the secretary would take effect when approved by Congress. Though nominally requiring the consent of the tribes, the Dawes Act was the centerpiece of a policy of coercive assimilation featuring concerted federal efforts to destroy Indian political and social organization, Indian religion and language, and everything else that made Indians different from white people. Even the requirement that the allotment agreements conform to the relevant tribal treaties proved to be empty. In 1903, the Supreme Court heard Kiowa chief Lone Wolf’s challenge to the

www.abc-clio.com

allotment agreement for the opening of the KiowaComanche-Apache Reservation in Oklahoma Territory. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek of 1867 (Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache) required that three-fourths of the tribal men must consent to any cession of the lands guaranteed by the treaty. Lone Wolf claimed that three-fourths had not consented to the allotment agreement and that many of the consents had been obtained by fraud (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 560–561). Notwithstanding the treaty provisions to the contrary, the Supreme Court held that Indian consent simply was not required. The Court did not consider whether Lone Wolf’s claims were true, because “[p]lenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government” (ibid., 565). It did not matter that the treaty had been violated: The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will only be exercised when circumstances arise which will not only justify the government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so. When, therefore, treaties were entered into between the United States and a Tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, particularly if consistent with perfect good faith towards the Indians. (ibid., 566) Noting that it had recently held that “full administrative power was possessed by Congress over Indian tribal property,” the Court concluded:

ABC-CLIO

In effect, the action of Congress now complained of was but an exercise of such power, a mere change in the form of investment of Indian tribal property, the property of those who, as we have held, were in substantial effect the wards of the government. We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint is made, and the legislative branch of the government exercised its best judgment in the premises. In any event, as Congress possessed full power in the matter,

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

the judiciary cannot question or inquire into the motives which prompted the enactment of this legislation. (ibid., 568) With the Court’s decision in Lone Wolf’s case, the ascendancy of Congress’s unilateral power in Indian affairs was complete. Policy would henceforth be made by Congress through statutes. Congress might seek the consent of the tribes, or it might not. Henceforth, when Congress chose to seek tribal consent, it did so out of benevolence, not legal necessity. The allotment experiment and the whole policy of coercive assimilation proved disastrous for the tribes. Few of the allotted Indians became selfsufficient, and Congress had to extend the trust period. Most Indians never received their fee patents. Many who did receive their fee patents simply were not prepared for the competitive American economic system, and many soon lost their lands to sharp dealing by unscrupulous non-Indians, to poor federal guardianship of their interests, or to simple misfortune (Prucha 1984, 763–813). Although Congress optimistically made citizens of all Indians (43 Stat. 253, 1924), the Indians’ poverty and their alienation from the larger society were not overcome. Their tribal systems of support for one another were deliberately suppressed, and they were destitute, ignorant, and ill. New policy was desperately needed. The new policy arrived in the form of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 984, 1934), yet another super-statute that defined an entire era of Indian policy. The IRA rejected all the assumptions underlying the policies of the allotment era. Rather than suppressing tribal political institutions, tribal governments were to be revitalized through constitutions adopted by the tribes and approved by the secretary of the interior. Rather than promoting exclusively individual self-sufficiency, the IRA prohibited further allotment of tribal lands and sought to establish and capitalize tribal enterprises to develop reservation resources. Rather than trying to destroy tribal cultures, Indians’ cultural practices would be accepted, and their arts and crafts would be promoted. The architect of the new policy, Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier, had a vision of tribes as communal economic entities bound together by primordial spiritual understandings of the proper relationships among humans, nature, and the sacred (Philp 1977, 1–3, 159–160). In his idealistic,

www.abc-clio.com

111

zealous pursuit of his vision, Collier would alienate many, both Indian and non-Indian, who made a profession of Indian policy. This and the diversion of federal resources to World War II would ultimately defeat the reorganization policy. Still, the IRA had a dramatic impact in some tribal economies and set the stage for the current policy of Indian self-determination by establishing federally sanctioned tribal institutions for the governance of reservation Indians and the provision of services in Indian communities. But first would come the “termination” policy. The failure of the reorganization policy to deal effectively with poverty on most reservations, along with Collier’s oppressive tactics in pressing the policy, alienated key members of Congress. At the same time, the impressive performance of Indian soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, as well as Indian workers in war industries, suggested that all that was needed for Indians to achieve selfsufficiency was to free them from the oppressive oversight of the Indian Bureau. Thus, Congress would “terminate” the tribal-federal relationship and leave Indians free to make their way in the world without ongoing federal supervision of their affairs (Fixico 1986, 91–97). Like its predecessors, the termination policy was defined by congressional enactments: House Concurrent Resolution 108 (67 Stat. B132, 1953), and Public Law 83–280 (67 Stat. 588, 1953). H.C.R. 108 had no legal effect, but it set the stage for implementation of the termination policy by declaring, [I]t is the policy of Congress, as rapidly as possible, to make the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States, to end their status as wards of the United States and to grant them all the rights and prerogatives pertaining to American citizenship. (p. B132) H.C.R. 108 directed the secretary of the interior to prepare a report with legislative recommendations for implementing the policy. Praised as a policy of freeing Indians from federal supervision, termination was also a withdrawal of federal programs upon which the tribes had come to rely. While waiting for the secretary to make recommendations as to which tribes should be termi-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

112

Historical Periods

nated, Congress proceeded with another key statute, Public Law 83–280. Consistent with the theme of affording Indians the same privileges and responsibilities as other citizens, Public Law 280 made Indians in several states subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the states in which their reservations were located. Specifically, reservations in Alaska, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), California, Nebraska, Wisconsin (except the Menominee Reservation), and Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation) were subjected to the authority of state courts. The other states were given the option of assuming civil and criminal jurisdiction if they chose. Tribal consent was not required. Termination began in earnest in 1954. That year the Klamath, Menominee, and several other tribes were the subjects of termination legislation. In 1956, legislation terminated three tribes in Oklahoma, and in 1958, legislation authorized the termination of dozens of California rancherias. In general, termination meant the sale of the tribe’s land or transfer of the land to a corporation owned by tribal members. The trust status of the land was terminated, and it was subject to state taxation. Tribal members lost their immunities to state laws and state taxes, and federal programs that had long provided needed social services to Indians were ended. In the case of the largest of the terminated tribes—the Klamath and the Menominee—tribal members shortly fell into poverty and tribal society into disarray (Prucha 1984, 1047–1056). The best that can be said of the termination policy is that the damage was limited both in scope and in time. Fewer than three percent of the Indian population belonged to terminated tribes, and by the early 1960s, the policy was halted. Many terminated tribes, including the largest ones, have since been restored to federal status as Indian tribes.

The Effects of Past Policy on Modern Tribal Rights Modern statutes define tribal rights in ways much more favorable to the tribes, as will be discussed in detail following. The older statutes and the treaties, however, continue to define tribal rights, particularly when it comes to the jurisdiction of the tribes and their courts. Chief Justice Marshall in 1831 famously defined tribes as “domestic, dependent nations” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 17). The following year, Marshall pursued this thought, saying,

www.abc-clio.com

The Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial . . . The very term “nation,” so generally applied to them, means “a people distinct from others.” . . . The words “treaty” and “nation” are words of our own language, selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having each a definite and well understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to the other nations of the earth. They are applied to all in the same sense. As for their status as “dependent” nations, Marshall said that this dependence was not an utter surrender of the sovereign rights of the tribes. To the contrary, [T]he settled doctrine of the law of nations is, that a weaker power does not surrender its independence—its right to self-government, by associating with a stronger, and taking its protection. A weak state, in order to provide for its safety, may place itself under the protection of one more powerful, without stripping itself of the right of government, and ceasing to be a state. . . .The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 520) The history of congressional policy since 1832 has led the Court in a much different direction in modern case law. The Court has been required to synthesize the wildly shifting policies of Congress over two hundred years and to consider the consequences of past policies on tribal authority. This is no small challenge. How is the Court to reconcile policy themes as wildly different as treaty making and coercive assimilation allotment, reorganization and termination? The truth is that they cannot be reconciled, yet the Court must still decide cases, and its recent decisions tend to dispense with the idea of tribes as inde-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

pendent states. Indeed, the Court, speaking through Justice Thurgood Marshall, remarked on the evolution of the Court’s Indian law doctrine in 1973: This is not to say that the Indian sovereignty doctrine, with its concomitant jurisdictional limit on the reach of state law, has remained static during the 141 years since Worcester was decided. Not surprisingly, the doctrine has undergone considerable evolution in response to hanged circumstances. . . . [N]otions of Indian sovereignty have been adjusted to take account of the State’s legitimate interests in regulating the affairs of non-Indians. . . .This line of cases was summarized in this Court’s landmark decision in William v. Lee: “Over the years this Court has modified (the Worcester principle) in cases where essential tribal relations were not involved and where the rights of Indians would not be jeopardized. . . . Essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” (McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 171–172, quoting Williams v. Lee 1959) The Court went on to remark that “[T]he trend has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward reliance on federal pre-emption. . . . The modern cases thus tend to avoid reliance on platonic notions of Indian sovereignty and to look instead to the applicable treaties and statutes which define the limits of state power.” Thus, unlike the findings in the Worcester case, the existence of tribal authority does not defeat state authority, even on the reservations. It is the exertion of federal power, mostly through congressional statutes, that define tribal authority: “The Indian sovereignty doctrine is relevant, then, not because it provides a definitive resolution of the issues in this suit, but because it provides a backdrop against which the applicable treaties and federal statutes must be read.” The effect of relegating Indian sovereignty to a “backdrop” may be seen in subsequent cases limiting tribal authority. The mold for the future of tribal jurisdiction was made in 1978 in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe. Commenting on the effect of

www.abc-clio.com

113

the history of congressional Indian affairs policy on modern tribal authority, the Court declared, “‘Indian law’ draws principally upon the treaties drawn and executed by the Executive Branch and legislation passed by Congress. These instruments, which beyond their actual text form the backdrop for the intricate web of judicially made Indian law, cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be read in light of the common notions of the day and the assumptions of those who drafted them” (206). Looking back over the 150 years of policy since the Worcester decision, the Court found that Indian tribes were deprived, over time, of any sovereign powers “inconsistent with their dependent status,” and that the three branches of the federal government shared an “unspoken assumption” that tribes lacked the authority to try and punish non-Indians for violations of tribal laws. The Oliphant rule has taken on a life of its own and is invoked in any circumstance in which tribes assert authority over persons not members of the tribe. In Montana v. United States (1981), the Court ruled that the Crow tribe could not regulate hunting and fishing by a non-Indian on land that was within the Crow Reservation but owned by non-Indians. The Court went on to say that tribes have regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indians on fee lands only in exceptional circumstances. In Duro v. Reina (1990), the Court said that tribes did not have jurisdiction to try and punish Indians who are members of other tribes. A few years later, in Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997), the Court held that tribal courts have no jurisdiction over personal injury actions brought by nonIndians against non-Indians where the accident causing the injury took place on a state-owned highway right-of-way within the reservation. In its decision in Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley (2001), the Court said that the Navajo Nation could not tax the guests of a hotel located on non-Indian-owned land within the reservation. And most recently, in Nevada v. Hicks (2001), the Court denied a tribal court jurisdiction over a trespass action against a state game warden alleged to have tortiously damaged property owned by an Indian and located on Indian trust land. In each of these cases, the Court said that it was following the policies established by Congress in Indian treaties and Indian affairs statutes. Even as the Court has restricted tribal authority over non-Indians, it has consistently upheld the application of tribal law to tribal members and prevented the application of state laws to reservation

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

114

Historical Periods

Indians without explicit congressional consent. Thus, in Williams v. Lee (1959), the Court struck down state jurisdiction over an action by a non-Indian against an Indian where the cause of action arose on the reservation. Only the tribal court could hear the action. Similarly, in Fisher v. District Court (1976), the Court ruled that state courts could not hear an adoption proceeding where all parties were reservation Indians; the jurisdiction of the tribal court was exclusive. In the area of criminal jurisdiction, the Court held in United States v. Wheeler (1978) that tribes retain inherent authority to try and punish their members for violations of tribal law, even where the United States has also exercised jurisdiction over the crime. States also have been consistently denied authority to tax and regulate reservation Indians. In Warren Trading Post v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1965), the Court prohibited the application of state sales taxes to purchases by Indians on the reservation. Similarly, in McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona (1973), the Court held that states may not tax income earned by Indians on their reservations. States may tax non-Indians for their transactions on Indian land in some circumstances (Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 1989), but they may not tax non-Indians where federal policies in support of tribal activities would be adversely affected by such taxation (White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 1980; Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 1982). Congress has rarely ventured into this jurisdictional maze in recent years, seemingly content to permit the Court to define the extent of tribal authority. From time to time, though, Congress steps in. Recall that in 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 83–280, which authorized states to assume jurisdiction over the reservations whether or not the tribes consented. In 1968, Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act (82 Stat. 77), which amended P. L. 280 to require tribal consent to any future extensions of state jurisdiction. The ICRA also placed important conditions on exercises of tribal powers by extending many of the requirements of the Bill of Rights to tribal governments. Congress occasionally finds it necessary to confirm tribal authority over certain matters. In the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3069), Congress confirmed the exclusive authority of tribal courts over child custody matters involving reservation Indian children, and gave tribes and Indian parents extraordinary rights in certain state court pro-

www.abc-clio.com

ceedings regarding custody of Indian children. Most interestingly, Congress has even employed its plenary power to reverse a Supreme Court decision in one instance. Recall that the Court in 1990 ruled that a tribe lacked criminal jurisdiction over an Indian who was a member of a different tribe (Duro v. Reina, 1990). In 1991, Congress responded by confirming the authority of tribes to try and punish nonmember Indians for violations of tribal law (105 Stat. 646). The Supreme Court recently upheld Congress’s authority to do so (United States v. Lara 2004). The scope of tribal powers, therefore, depends less on the inherent sovereign authority of Indian tribes and more on treaties and congressional statutes. Although the treaties remain partially in effect and form the foundation for understanding subsequent developments, statutes have come to play a dominant role in most issues of tribal jurisdiction. Congress has not often employed its Indian affairs authority to explicitly define tribal jurisdiction in recent years, but when it has done so, the results have generally favored the tribes since the end of the termination era. This outcome is consistent with the policies expressed in the flurry of statutes passed since the end of termination. The pressing question in modern Indian policy is, To what extent shall Congress use its plenary power to restore tribal authorities?

Statutes and the Indian Self-Determination Policy Unlike previous policy eras, no single statute can be said to be the centerpiece of current federal Indian policy. The sheer number of important statutes passed in the last forty years prevents any single statute from dominating the discussion. Even as termination was losing favor, a new policy was being created. President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and Great Society legislation was not addressed primarily to the problems of Indian tribes, but Indian concerns nevertheless received unusual—but appropriate—levels of attention. For example, tribal needs were specifically addressed in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 508, 1964), which made tribes eligible for funding for youth programs, community action programs, and the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program, among others. The Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, and Operation Head Start brought new programs and funding to the reservations. And unlike Bureau of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs, Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) funds were administered directly by the tribes. Although OEO funds were hardly sufficient to make a dent in the problem of Indian poverty, they had the collateral effect of increasing tribal governments’ capacity to administer federal programs and, in turn, increased the desire of tribal governments to take over other federal programs for the reservations (Prucha 1984, 1091–1100). In March 1968, President Johnson proposed a new Indian policy with a new goal, “a goal that ends the old debate about ‘termination’ of Indian programs and stresses Self-Determination; a goal that erases old attitudes of paternalism and promotes partnership self-help” (Public Papers of the Presidents 1968–1969 1970, 335–344). The new policy was carried on and expanded in the Nixon administration. Indian policy since the allotment era had suffered from a belief that only two policy approaches were possible. One approach, represented by the allotment and termination policies, held that Indians must be de-tribalized and all special federal programmatic support withdrawn. The other, represented by the reorganization policy, held that tribal governments were the proper vehicles for Indian progress and that tribal governments required federal assistance and oversight that were often smothering. In 1970, President Nixon attempted to take the best and reject the worst of each of these policy traditions. In his Special Message on Indian Affairs on July 8 (Public Papers of the Presidents 1970 1971, 564–576), President Nixon repudiated both the termination policy and the paternalism that had long characterized the federal government’s relationship with the tribes. He concluded that neither termination nor paternalism were acceptable bases for modern policy: Self-Determination among the Indian people can and must be encouraged without the threat of eventual termination. In my view, in fact, that is the only way that Self-Determination can effectively be fostered. This, then, must be the goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people to strengthen the Indian’s sense of autonomy without threatening this sense of community. We must assure the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can become

www.abc-clio.com

115

independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal support. (Ibid., 566–567) In the decade following President Nixon’s message, Congress enacted many statutes that fundamentally changed federal Indian policy. Congress’s increased level of activity was attributable in part to the reestablishment of a Senate committee specializing in Indian affairs. The Indian Affairs Committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate had been abolished in 1946. In 1975, Congress established a commission to review Indian policy. The American Indian Policy Review Commission consisted of three senators, three U.S. representatives, and five Indian private citizens. The commission was charged with a comprehensive review of all aspects of federal Indian law and policy, as well as the administration of Indian programs by federal agencies. In anticipation of receiving the commission’s report and recommendations, the Senate in 1977 established a temporary select committee with legislative authority over Indian affairs. The Select Committee on Indian Affairs was supposed to complete its work in only two years. That proved unrealistic. As more and more issues came before the committee, the life of the committee was extended, and the committee ultimately was made permanent in 1984. The existence of a Committee on Indian Affairs with broad legislative and oversight authority played and continues to play a large role in the great volume of Indian affairs legislation that has been enacted since its establishment. The Indian affairs statutes enacted since President Nixon urged a policy of Indian selfdetermination have been impressive in breadth. The last forty years have seen important legislation on topics ranging from social services to cultural resource protection to environmental regulation to tribal administration of federal programs and beyond. Indian policy has been changed fundamentally. Tribal governments now directly administer dozens of service programs previously administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Tribal cultures that were suppressed so aggressively during the allotment era now enjoy federal protection. Tribes regulate reservation environments with federal support. In large measure, tribes and their members have been

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

116

Historical Periods

relieved of the overbearing federal presence of the past with no withdrawal of federal support, just as President Nixon proposed. A review of some of the more important statutes follows.

Restoration Acts and Land and Water Settlement Acts The rejection of the termination has been quite thorough in the last three decades. The Menominee tribe and the Klamath tribe, the largest of the terminated tribes, were restored to federal recognition in 1973 (87 Stat. 770) and 1986 (100 Stat. 849), respectively. Several other terminated tribes have been restored as well (Cohen 2005, 168). Southern and eastern tribes that brought land claims seeking redress for wrongful takings of their land in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were able both to resume their status as recognized Indian tribes and to receive cash and property in settlement of their claims. Congress has enacted legislation settling the claims of the Narragansett (92 Stat. 813, 1978), Penobscot, Passamaquoddy and Maliseet (94 Stat. 1785, 1980), Mashantucket Pequot (97 Stat. 851, 1983), Mohegan (108 Stat. 3501, 1994), and Gay Head Wampanoag (101 Stat. 704, 1987) tribes, among others. These legislative settlements required the tribes to give up their claims to many hundreds of thousands of acres; but, realistically, the tribes were quite unlikely to recover through the judicial process all of the lands they claimed. In exchange for a theoretical legal right to vast portions of the eastern United States, these tribes received statutory assurances of smaller but still valuable territories and ongoing intergovernmental relationships with the United States. Similarly, a number of western tribes sued to redeem their rights to water for their members and their lands. Since the onset of the self-determination era, Congress has enacted water rights settlements for the Gila River Indian Community (118 Stat. 3499, 2004), the Tohono O’odham Nation (96 Stat. 1274, 1982), the Pueblo of Zuni (117 Stat. 782, 2003), the Paiute tribe of Utah (114 Stat. 737, 2000), the YavapaiPrescott Indian tribe (108 Stat. 4526, 1994), the San Carlos Apache tribe (106 Stat. 4740, 1992), the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian tribes (104 Stat. 3289, 1990), and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (102 Stat. 2549, 1988), among others. As with the eastern land claims, these water settlements often required tribes to abandon much larger, but still theoretical, claims to water. These statutory rights are

www.abc-clio.com

more firm and certain than speculative claims resting on treaties, executive orders, and statutes that created the reservations but made no specific provision for water. For Congress to take pains to ensure tribal water rights in the arid West demonstrates a strong commitment to the futures of these Indian communities.

Tribal Administration of Federal Programs As noted previously, the Office of Economic Opportunity provided funds directly to tribal governments to operate service programs on the reservations in the 1960s. In 1975, Congress aggressively expanded the concept to include virtually all programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The Indian SelfDetermination Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2006, 1975) profoundly changed the relationships between tribal governments and the two agencies most responsible for the welfare of Indian tribes. Under the act, tribes may request to contract with the agencies to administer programs on their reservations. The agencies can almost never deny a tribal request. The SelfDetermination Act was amended in 1994 by the Tribal Self-Governance Act (108 Stat. 4270), which further expands tribal authority in administering service programs on reservations. Congress has also applied the Self-Determination Act model to programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 4016). Congress has also made substantive reforms to specific programs and created new programs for Indian communities. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 1400), the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 473), and the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (107 Stat. 2004), established enforceable standards for important health, public safety, and justice programs. The Indian Education Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 334), the Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act (86 Stat. 334), the Indian Education Assistance Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2213), and the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 1325) reformed school programs serving Indian students and led to the establishment of dozens of tribal colleges, creating higher education opportunities for reservation residents where none had existed before. These programmatic reforms,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

focusing as they do on the key areas of health, education, and law and order, reflect the still-expanding commitment of Congress to improving conditions on reservations. Tribes were consulted throughout the legislative process and helped make these important improvements.

Economic Development Congress has also attempted to address the poverty that has persisted since the traditional tribal economies were destroyed and the reservations established in the nineteenth century. Much of Indian country remains desperately poor, and no solution has yet been found for most of the largest tribes. Still, progress has been made, and the tribes themselves have been the primary engines of progress on this issue. According to the census bureau, from 2002 to 2004 the Indian poverty rate of 24.3 percent was nearly twice that for all races (12.4 percent) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2005). The tribes now have ongoing programmatic support from the United States. In 1974, Congress enacted the Indian Financing Act (88 Stat. 77). The act created a direct loan program, a revolving loan guarantee fund, and an interest subsidy program to help tribes and Indian business owners borrow money for their enterprises. Congress has also attempted to improve management of both tribal and individually owned lands held in trust for Indians by the United States. The Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 (96 Stat. 2517) and the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 4239) constitute earnest efforts by Congress to help the tribes make the most of their single largest asset: fifty-five million acres of land. In like manner, Congress has tried to help the tribes increase their returns on the mineral resources of the reservations. The most significant of these efforts, the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1938), abandoned the outdated and exploitative model of leasing to outsiders in return for insufficient royalties, authorized more modern and creative relationships between tribes and mineral producers, and reduced federal involvement in tribal decisions. In 1988, the most important economic development legislation of all was passed: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (102 Stat. 2467). Since the act’s passage, gaming has provided many tribal communities with badly needed discretionary income to support tribal government operations.

www.abc-clio.com

117

This landmark legislation is discussed in detail that follows.

Environmental Regulation Congress has also begun weaving tribal governments into national regulatory regimes, building upon the inherent authority of the tribes over their members and their territories. Federal environmental regulatory laws generally require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish and enforce standards for various sources of pollution. The EPA may delegate primary enforcement authority to the states. These federal laws generally apply to Indians, Indian tribes, and their reservations. Before 1986, though, these statutes generally did not provide a regulatory role for Indian tribes, and states generally lack regulatory authority on Indian lands, especially over Indians. Though the EPA had authority to regulate the environment on Indian reservations, the system of delegating authority to local governments broke down when it came to Indian reservations. Congress therefore amended several major federal environmental statutes between 1986 and 1990. The Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean Air Act were amended to permit the EPA to treat tribes in the same manner as it treats states, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes. The national regulatory system thus now involves government-to-government partnerships in which the federal government, states, and Indian tribes play important roles in the establishment and enforcement of environmental standards within and near Indian reservations. In 1986, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize the EPA to treat tribes as states under the act (100 Stat. 642). The CERCLA was also amended in 1986 so that tribes “shall be afforded substantially the same treatment as a state” (100 Stat. 1706). Tribes can enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with the federal government to carry out remedial actions for hazardous waste releases and submit claims to the superfund for damages to tribal natural resources. Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987. Congress authorized the EPA administrator to “treat an Indian tribe as a State” for purposes of establishing water quality standards and issuing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

118

Historical Periods

permits (101 Stat. 76). The authorization for tribal regulation refers to waters “within the borders of an Indian reservation.” Congress clearly anticipated that all areas within the reservation, including non-Indian-owned lands, would be subject to tribal regulation. The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 to authorize tribes to be treated as states for purposes of the act (104 Stat. 2464). Like the amendments to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act authorizes the treatment of tribes as states for purposes of the management and protection of air resources “within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.” The amendments to these federal environmental laws mark an important policy decision by the Congress. Rather than leaving the tribes to endure the application of federal or state laws on environmental quality, Congress has created the opportunity for tribes to take that responsibility to themselves. Equally important, the statutes make tribes key threads in a national regulatory tapestry, hardening to at least some degree the place of tribes in American federalism. By doing so, the statutes go beyond the treaties, which envisioned the reservations as islands outside the reach of general federal laws, and tribes as entities unable to participate directly in implementing national policy.

Cultural Resource Protection From the end of treaty making in 1871 until the reorganization policy of the 1930s, the United States engaged in an organized assault on tribal culture. Modern statutes, though, give favorable attention to Indian cultural and religious practices and languages. In 1978, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (92 Stat. 469), which expressed the policy that Native American religions were entitled to constitutional protection. In 1989, Congress passed the National Museum of the American Indian Act (103 Stat. 1336), which established a museum on the Capitol Mall in Washington for the presentation of Indian cultures. Finally, in 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 104 Stat. 3048), which required that human remains and items of cultural significance in the possession of federally funded museums be returned to the tribes, and created tribal rights in the disposition of human remains and cultural items found on federal and

www.abc-clio.com

tribal lands. The NAGPRA is discussed in detail that follows below. The statutes of the self-determination era have expanded tribal authority in numerous respects. The statutes fall well short of acknowledging Indian tribes as independent sovereigns and thus are not like the early treaties made when there was some equality in the federal-tribal relationship. Nor does Congress await formal tribal consent before creating statutory rights for Indians and tribes, as was true of Indian treaties ratified by the Senate. However, statutory rights do resemble treaty rights in some respects. Nearly all the statutes discussed above, especially those that permit tribes to assume responsibility for federal programs, take effect at the option of the tribes. For example, tribes may choose to assume responsibility for BIA and IHS service programs, or they may require the agencies to continue to provide the services directly. Furthermore, the reestablishment of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the ever-increasing and effective participation of tribes in American electoral politics have created a congressional environment in which it is unlikely that major legislation affecting Indians would be enacted over broad tribal opposition. Indeed, most if not all of the selfdetermination era statutes were passed at the urging of tribal governments. The plenary power of Congress, so frequently engaged to the disadvantage of the tribes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, has regularly been employed for the benefit of tribes in the last forty years. As discussed shortly, Congress has even used its plenary power to create statutory Indian rights well beyond those of other Americans.

Examples of Statutes Expanding and Protecting Important Tribal Rights The importance of statutory rights in modern Indian reservation life is easily demonstrated by close examination of three self-determination era statutes: the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 The Indian Child Welfare Act (92 Stat. 3269) is a prominent example of modern Indian affairs legisla-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

tion. Tribes were concerned with the practices of state and private social service agencies regarding Indian children. These agencies were placing Indian children into white foster families and adoptive families with little or no regard for the wishes of the tribes or the cultural needs of the children. In response to these tribal concerns, Congress passed a statute that gave Indian tribes the primary role in the placement of Indian children, as well as granting the tribes extraordinary authority to prevent state courts from making such determinations in certain circumstances. Section 2 of the act recites a series of congressional findings that served as the backdrop for the substance of the legislation. Acknowledging the federal responsibility to Indian people and the special place of children in ensuring the future of the tribes, Congress found that [A]n alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions; and . . . the States, exercising their recognized jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings through administrative and judicial bodies, have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families. (92 Stat. 3269) Based on these findings, Congress declared that federal policy would henceforth be to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families” (ibid). This would be done by promoting the placement of Indian children in foster or adoptive homes that “reflect the unique values of Indian culture,” and by providing assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service programs. The ICWA went further still, providing for broad tribal jurisdiction over placements of Indian children and, extraordinarily, allowing tribes to preempt states in the exercise of such authority in many circumstances. Indian tribes were given exclusive jurisdiction over custody matters involving Indian children living on reservations. Further, state court cases involving foster care placements of Indian chil-

www.abc-clio.com

119

dren or terminations of parental rights of Indian parents are required to be transferred to tribal courts, unless either parent objects or unless the state court finds “good cause” not to do so. In proceedings that remain in state court, the child’s tribe has the right to intervene at any point in the proceeding. Importantly, judgments of Indian tribal courts in child welfare matters must be afforded full faith and credit by all federal, state, and tribal courts. The rights of tribes and Indian parents are further expanded in provisions regarding involuntary custody and termination proceedings in state courts. For example, if a state court “knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved,” the Indian parent or custodian and the Indian child’s tribe must be notified of the proceedings and of their right of intervention (92 Stat. 3071). No placement or termination proceedings can be held until at least ten days after the parent or custodian and the tribe are notified. If they request additional time to prepare for the proceeding, that request must be granted. Further, if an Indian parent or custodian is indigent, the state court must appoint counsel. When seeking a foster care placement or termination of parental rights regarding an Indian child, the agency seeking the placement or termination must demonstrate that “active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful” (92 Stat. 3072). A foster care placement can be ordered only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” A termination of parental rights requires an even stronger showing. Termination may not be ordered unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt “that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child” (ibid.). Even when an Indian parent is seeking a voluntary foster care placement or termination of parental rights, the ICWA makes sure that the parents’ and the tribes’ rights are protected. Such consent must be in writing. The presiding judge must certify that the “consequences of the consent were fully explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian,” and that the parent or custodian either “fully understood the explana-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

120

Historical Periods

tion in English or that it was interpreted into a language that the parent or Indian custodian understood” (ibid). Moreover, consents to termination made prior to or within ten days of birth are invalid under the act. In the case of a foster care placement, an Indian parent or custodian may withdraw consent at any time, and the child must be returned. Similarly, even where a parent has agreed to a termination of parental rights or to an adoptive placement of an Indian child, the consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the entry of a final decree of termination or adoption. If consent is withdrawn, the child must be returned to the Indian parent or custodian. Finally, even after a final decree is entered, a parent may withdraw consent for up to two years if he or she can show that the consent was obtained through fraud or duress. If the court finds such fraud or duress, “the court shall vacate such decree and return the child to the parent” (ibid.) Furthermore, if a foster care placement or termination of parental rights is done in violation of the ICWA provisions described above, the Indian parent or custodian and the Indian child’s tribe may petition to have the placement or termination invalidated. Most extraordinarily, perhaps, the child need not actually be a member of an Indian tribe to be an “Indian child” under the act. A child need only be “eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and . . . the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe” for the ICWA to apply (92 Stat. 3270). State court adoptive placements and foster care and preadoptive placements must also comply with substantive standards in the act. Section 105 of the ICWA requires that, in any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, “a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families” (92 Stat. 3073). Furthermore, any child accepted for foster care or preadoptive placement must be placed in “the least restrictive setting which most approximates a family” and in which any special needs of the child may be met (ibid.). The child must be placed within reasonable proximity to his or her home. Finally, in any foster care or preadoptive placement, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with—(i) a member of the Indian child’s extended family; (ii) a foster home licensed,

www.abc-clio.com

approved, or specified by the Indian child’s tribe; (iii) an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; or (iv) an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child’s needs. (ibid.) If the child’s tribe establishes a different order of preference, the state court is obliged to follow that order “so long as the placement is the least restrictive setting appropriate to the particular needs of the child” (ibid). The preferences of the child and the Indian parent are to be considered as well. Congress also permitted tribes to undo state jurisdiction created by Public Law 280. Under the ICWA, tribes in Public Law 280 states may reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings that have been under the authority of state courts. A tribe must petition the secretary of the interior and present a plan for exercising such jurisdiction. The secretary then may approve the plan if, after considering factors specified in the ICWA, he or she finds that the tribe’s plan is feasible. The ICWA is significant in several respects. First and foremost, the specific ousting of the states from jurisdiction over custody proceedings involving Indian children on the reservations is an aggressive use of Congress’s plenary power over Indian affairs. Some states and private social service agencies objected to the ICWA, but Congress did not yield, choosing rather to defer to tribal opinions in this sensitive area. Further, the ICWA actually overrides the substantive law of the states. Any state law that is inconsistent with the ICWA is essentially replaced by the relevant ICWA provisions in proceedings involving an Indian child. Family law matters have traditionally been the exclusive domain of the states, and for Congress to intervene so directly to supersede state law in such matters was unprecedented. The plenary power that was used to harm tribal interests a century ago has become a formidable force in the defense of tribal interests now. Finally, the ICWA seeks to empower tribal governments to assume responsibility for the critical functions of the child welfare system. In addition to the tribal rights listed above, the act authorized the establishment of programs at the Department of the Interior to assist tribes in exercising their authorities under the act. The Department of the Interior was

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

authorized to make grants to tribes to help them to establish licensing systems for foster homes; to operate and maintain facilities for counseling and treating Indian families; to employ child welfare professionals in tribal courts; to provide education relating to child and family assistance; and to provide legal representation for Indian families involved in child custody proceedings. Even off-reservation Indian organizations are eligible for federal funding for programs designed to help assure the appropriate placement of Indian children under the ICWA. In these respects and more, the ICWA marked a major turning point in the willingness of Congress to use its Indian affairs power in ways that favor tribes, even over the objections of states and private interests. For these reasons, it is noteworthy legislation that demonstrates the extent to which tribal rights and powers are increasingly the result of federal statutes.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2467) is the most important Indian affairs legislation in recent times. Unlike other self-determination era statutes, the IGRA was passed largely in response to concerns raised by state governments rather than the tribes. In Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. California (1987), the Supreme Court held that Indian tribes could conduct commercial gambling on their reservations so long as similar activities were allowed off the reservations by state law. Because states permitted many types of gambling—from state lotteries to horse racing to charitable bingo to commercial casinos—the Cabazon decision opened the door to many forms of commercial Indian gaming. Both Congress and the states were concerned that tribal gaming would be vulnerable to criminal activity. The tribes, on the other hand, were anxious to defend their right to conduct gaming with a minimum of federal and state interference. In October 1988, Congress enacted the IGRA. The act bore the marks of compromise; fine distinctions were drawn between different types of gambling, and regulatory authority over Indian gaming was divided among the states, the tribes, and the federal government. The purposes of the act included providing a federal statutory basis for the conduct of Indian gaming, empowering the tribes to regulate gaming to prevent infiltration by organized crime, and declaring “that the establishment of independent Federal regulatory authority for gam-

www.abc-clio.com

121

ing on Indian lands [and] the establishment of Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands . . . are necessary to meet congressional concerns regarding gaming and to protect such gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue” (ibid.). To carry out the federal regulatory role, the act establishes the National Indian Gaming Commission, a threemember regulatory commission whose chairman is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The IGRA establishes a three-tier system for the regulation of Indian gaming. Class I gaming, which includes social games and traditional tribal gambling activities, is regulated exclusively by the tribes without federal or state involvement. Class II gaming, including bingo and similar games (and electronic versions of such games) and card games that are specifically permitted by state laws, are subject to both tribal and federal regulation. Class III gaming, which includes most casino gaming and pari-mutuel wagering such as at horse and dog tracks, requires the approval of the state in which a tribe’s gaming activity is located and is subject to a complex of federal, state, and tribal regulatory laws. The act permits tribes to engage in Class II gaming if the gaming is located in a state “that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity (and such gaming is not otherwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by Federal law)” (102 Stat. 2472). The tribe must adopt an ordinance regulating gaming, and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) must approve the ordinance. The tribal ordinance is required to provide, with only rare exceptions no longer relevant, that the tribe will be the sole owner of the gaming enterprise. Further, the tribal ordinance must limit the uses of tribal gaming revenues to five specific purposes: “(i) to fund tribal government operations or programs; (ii) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members; (iii) to promote tribal economic development; (iv) to donate to charitable organizations; or (v) to help fund operations of local government agencies” (102 Stat. 2473). Tribes may pay out gaming revenues to tribe members on an individual basis if the tribe prepares a plan for allocating revenues to the purposes described above and the secretary has approved the tribal plan. The tribal ordinance must require annual outside audits of the gaming enterprise and must ensure that “the construction and maintenance of the gaming facility, and the operation of that gaming is

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

122

Historical Periods

conducted in a manner which adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety” (ibid). The tribe must also establish a system for licensing gaming employees and conducting background investigations of “primary management officials” and “key employees” of the gaming enterprise. The tribe must notify the NIGC of the results of background investigations before issuing gaming licenses and again when it issues a license. If the NIGC provides to a tribe reliable information establishing that a manager or other key employee is not eligible for a license, the tribe must suspend the employee’s license and, after a hearing, may revoke the license. These requirements are to ensure that licenses are not granted to persons “whose prior activities, criminal record, if any, or reputation, habits, and associations pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming” (ibid). Contracts for the management of tribal gaming enterprises must be approved by the commission. Prior to approving such a contract, the chairman of the commission must verify that the contract contains certain terms ensuring that the tribe can adequately regulate the gaming enterprise and that the tribe’s financial interests are protected. The contract must provide for a minimum guaranteed payment to the tribe. The term of the contract cannot exceed five years, unless the chairman of the commission finds that the capital investment required for the enterprise and the expected profit justify a longer term of up to seven years. If the manager is to be compensated with a percentage of the revenues from the enterprise, the manager may receive only such a percentage of the net revenues as the chairman of the NIGC determines to be “reasonable in light of surrounding circumstances” (102 Stat. 2480). The management fee may not exceed 30 percent of net revenues, unless the chairman finds that the capital investment and income projections for the enterprise justify an additional fee of up to 40 percent of net revenues. The regulatory process for Class II gaming under the IGRA thus is comprehensive. The process for tribes wishing to engage in Class III gaming is more complicated still. First, the gaming enterprise must be located in a state “that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity” (102 Stat. 2475). The tribe must adopt an ordi-

www.abc-clio.com

nance that meets all the requirements of a Class II gaming ordinance as described above, and the ordinance must be approved by the commission. The great difference in the regulation of Class II and Class III gaming is that Class III gaming may be conducted only in conformance with an agreement entered into by the tribe and the state in which the gaming activity is to take place. This concession to state authority was a controversial provision of the act when it was passed and remains controversial. Tribes sought to prevent state regulation completely, whereas states wanted to regulate all gaming on the reservations, including Class II gaming. Congress did not seem inclined to establish a federal regulatory agency to oversee all of the details of Class III gaming activities, and so the matter was left to agreements—“compacts”—entered into by tribes and states. The development of a tribal-state gaming compact begins with a tribe’s request to a state to commence negotiations. If the negotiations proceed well and produce an agreement, all that remains is for the secretary of the interior to approve the compact. The act authorizes tribes and states to include provision relating to (i) the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related to and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such activity; (ii) the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations; (iii) the assessment by the State of such activities in such amounts as are necessary to defray the costs of regulating such activity: . . . (vi) standards for the operation of such activity and maintenance of the gaming facility, including licensing; and (vii) any other subjects that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities. (102 Stat. 2476) The authorization to states and tribes to compact for the application of state laws and state jurisdiction is extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented in federal Indian affairs statutes. If the parties agree to a compact, there is little reason to object to the process. If the negotiations do not go well, however, the process becomes complex and controversial. At the request of tribes, Congress added a requirement to the IGRA that a state, once

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

asked to start negotiations, must negotiate “in good faith.” Should a state fail to do so, the tribe had the option, 180 days after the request for negotiations, to sue the state in federal district court. If the court found that the state failed in its obligation to negotiate in good faith, the court could initiate a process in which the state and tribe were given 60 days to complete a compact. If they failed to agree in that time, they were required to submit their “last best offer” to a mediator appointed by the court. The mediator then selected the compact “that best comports with the terms of” the IGRA and submitted the compact to the parties (102 Stat. 2478). If the state consented to the compact selected by the mediator within 60 days, the compact was submitted to the secretary for approval. If the state did not consent, the secretary was authorized to consult with the tribe and to issue “procedures” under which the tribe would be permitted to conduct Class III gaming. In the years shortly following enactment of the IGRA, this process produced some extraordinary results. Wisconsin and Connecticut, for example, faced with the possibility of a court-ordered mediator, and the possibility that the secretary and the tribes would determine how Class III gaming could be conducted on the reservations, entered into compacts that have left tribes with the exclusive right to own and operate casinos in those states. As other states faced the same challenge, however, resistance to the IGRA compacting process increased, and the states were ultimately successful in upsetting the process entirely. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that the IGRA provision permitting suits in federal courts against the states was a violation of the states’ sovereign immunity. Although this appeared to give the states the upper hand in dealing with the tribes on gaming issues, the decision in the Seminole case has not slowed the explosive growth in Indian gaming. Instead, tribes have managed to use state political processes and institutions to gain the compacts required by the IGRA, even where state officials are reluctant to enter into compacts. In California, for example, tribes persuaded voters to enact changes to the California constitution that left the tribes with the exclusive right to operate slot machines in the state. In New Mexico, the tribes gained sufficient influence in the state’s electoral and political processes to persuade the legislature to enact and the governor to approve a new state law that permits

www.abc-clio.com

123

tribes to operate casinos on an exclusive basis in the state. Furthermore, the Department of the Interior has issued regulations that establish a process by which a tribe can petition the secretary to issue Class III gaming procedures for the tribe if the state refuses to negotiate in good faith and asserts its sovereign immunity to prevent the federal courts from intervening. A major consequence of the IGRA—and the most ironic one—is that, because they were required to get the states’ permission to conduct Class III gaming, the tribes have had to develop great influence in state political systems. Those processes have been swayed by the financial resources the tribes can now devote to their political efforts. The tribes objected strongly to the requirement of state approval for Class III gaming, yet that requirement has led them to unprecedented influence in state politics. Violations of the act can result in criminal penalties. Any gambling on reservations not in compliance with the act is a federal crime. Theft from an Indian gaming establishment is criminal as well; theft of more than $1,000 can be punished with a fine of up to $250,000 and a jail term of up to ten years. Theft by employees and holders of gaming licenses can be punished with a fine as large as $1,000,000 and a jail term of twenty years. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is watershed legislation in many respects. Despite its obvious importance when it was being considered, few could have anticipated the truly phenomenal effects it would have in many Indian communities. Between 1995 and 2004, revenues from Indian gaming grew from $5.4 billion to $22.6 billion. Approximately 225 tribes in twenty-eight states are engaged in gaming. Some 250 Class III tribal-state gaming compacts have been approved. Gaming is by far the largest source of revenue for many Indian tribes. This bounty, however, is not evenly distributed across Indian country. Two hundred tribes in Alaska, for example, are unable to engage in Indian gaming. Tribes in Utah are also unable to conduct gaming because all gaming is prohibited in Utah. Further, most of the largest reservations—such as those in North and South Dakota and Montana—do not generate large amounts of revenue due to their rural locations and the endemic poverty on those reservations. Thus, although gaming has been a successful economic development strategy, most of the largest tribal populations do not receive much benefit.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

124

Historical Periods

Still, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has widely succeeded in its objective to assist tribes in their efforts at economic development and selfsufficiency. The IGRA is different from most Indian affairs legislation in an important sense. The IGRA seemed to invite state authority onto the reservations in a major way, over the objections of many tribes. Indeed, it seemed to some that the tribal victory in the Cabazon case was undone in large part in the IGRA. In truth, however, the Court’s Cabazon decision was thin soil in which to grow the major industry that Indian gaming has become. It was only with Congress’s ratification of the tribes’ right to offer commercial gaming that the industry had a firm and comprehensive legal basis. Through ingenuity and persistence, the tribes overcame the hurdles created in the IGRA and have become important players in a major American industry.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (104 Stat. 3048) is another example of the creation and protection of extraordinary rights for Indians. Like the IGRA, the NAGPRA was enacted over the objection of powerful interests unaccustomed to being disadvantaged for the benefit of Indians. In the case of NAGPRA, museums, universities, and other elements of the scientific communities were deeply concerned that congressional limits on their access to Indian graves, antiquities, and cultural objects would inhibit the search for knowledge of the origins and experience of humans in North America. Despite these concerns, Congress enacted a statute intended to empower Indians and Indian tribes seeking to protect the graves of their ancestors and culturally significant property from becoming—or remaining—possessions of nonIndian institutions. The NAGPRA is meant to ensure that “cultural items” of Native Americans are protected. Cultural items include human remains, “funerary objects” (objects placed in a human grave), “sacred objects” (objects needed by religious leaders for traditional religious practices), and “cultural patrimony” (objects with historical, traditional, or cultural importance to a Native American group or culture, as opposed to property owned by an individual Native American) (104 Stat. 3048–49). The NAGPRA increases the protections for Indian graves located on federal and tribal lands and provides for

www.abc-clio.com

Indian control over cultural items obtained from such lands after the effective date of the statute. With respect to Native American cultural items in the possession of federal agencies and museums, the NAGPRA imposes specific duties on the museums and agencies, most notably the duty to prepare inventories of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and summaries of the other categories of cultural items, and the duty to repatriate all of these items to culturally affiliated tribes or descendants upon request. The first key provision of the NAGPRA relates to cultural items found on federal or tribal lands. If human remains and associated funerary objects were or are discovered on federal or tribal lands after November 1990, they belong to the lineal descendants of the deceased. (An associated funerary object is an object from a grave, and both the object and the human remains “are presently in the possession or control of a Federal agency or museum.” The term also includes items exclusively made for burial purposes or to contain human remains (104 Stat. 3048). If the lineal descendants cannot be determined (or if the objects are unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony), and they are discovered on tribal land, they belong to the tribe on whose land they were discovered or to the tribe with the closest cultural affiliation with the object. (An unassociated funerary object is an object from a grave, and the remains are not in the possession or control of the federal agency or museum, but the objects can be identified as related to specific individuals or families or to known human remains or as having been removed from a specific burial site of an individual culturally affiliated with a particular Indian tribe.) If objects are discovered on federal lands, they belong to the tribe whose aboriginal territory (as determined by a judgment of the Indian claims commission or the court of claims) included the land where the objects were discovered, unless another tribe demonstrates a stronger cultural relationship to the objects, in which case they belong to the tribe with the stronger cultural relationship. This establishment of Indian ownership of such items on federal lands is extraordinary in U.S. law. Generally, the owner of land also owns property found on or in the land. The NAGPRA, however, permits Indians and Indian tribes to assert ownership of cultural items found on federal lands. The statute also protects Indian ownership interests of cultural items found on federal or tribal

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

lands by allowing their excavation or removal only with a permit issued under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and only after consultation with the appropriate tribe. If the cultural items are on tribal land, the tribe must grant consent. The tribe or individual still owns the objects in accordance with the provisions just discussed. If cultural items are inadvertently discovered, the discoverer must notify the head of the federal agency responsible for the land, as well as the appropriate Indian tribe, of the discovery. Furthermore, if the discovery occurred in the course of an activity such as construction, mining, logging, or agriculture, the activity must cease in the area of the discovery. The discoverer must make a reasonable effort to protect the items discovered before resuming the activity and must provide notice to the appropriate federal agency and Indian tribe. The activities may resume only after the head of the relevant federal agency or the appropriate Indian tribe has certified that notice has been received. Moreover, cultural items inadvertently discovered belong either to individual Indians or to the appropriate Indian tribe, as described previously. The NAGPRA also is concerned with cultural items in the possession of federal agencies and museums. The act was passed largely in response to the fact that thousands of Native American remains were in museum collections, many of them as the result of a systematic effort to collect such remains in the nineteenth century. The NAGPRA requires federal agencies and museums that receive federal funding (which is nearly every major museum in the country) and have among their collections Native American human remains and associated funerary objects to compile an inventory of such items. They are further required, to the extent possible based on information in their possession, to identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of the items. After compiling the inventory, if the agency or museum determines the cultural affiliation of any particular Native American human remains or associated funerary objects, the agency or museum must notify the affected tribes within six months of completing the inventory. Similarly, federal agencies and museums receiving federal funding must provide a written summary of any unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that they have in their collections. The summary must describe the scope of the collection, the kinds of objects included, and references to the geographi-

www.abc-clio.com

125

cal locations, means, and period of acquisition and cultural affiliation of the objects, where readily ascertainable. The purpose of these inventories and summaries is to provide information to Indians and Indian tribes and permit them to determine whether they wish to have the remains and objects returned to them. The NAGPRA establishes standards and procedures for the repatriation of such remains and objects to the individual Indian or tribe to whom they rightfully belong. In the case of human remains and associated funerary objects the cultural affiliation of which has been established, federal agencies and museums are required, upon the request of a known descendant of the Native American or of the tribe, “to expeditiously return such remains and associated funerary objects” (104 Stat. 3045). Similarly, with respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, if the cultural affiliation is shown, the museum or agency must return the objects to the appropriate tribe. Even where the cultural affiliations of remains and objects have not been established or the items not included, in the inventories or summaries required by the statute, tribes may still have a right to repatriation. In cases involving human remains and funerary objects, a tribe may request repatriation if it can show cultural affiliation “by a preponderance of the evidence based upon geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion” (ibid.) Upon such a showing, the museum or federal agency must return the item. Furthermore, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony must be returned where (A) the requesting party is the direct lineal descendant of an individual who owned the sacred object; (B) the requesting Indian tribe . . . can show that the object was owned or controlled by the tribe . . . ; or (C) the requesting Indian tribe . . . can show that the sacred object was owned or controlled by a member thereof, provided that in the case where a sacred object was owned by a member thereof, there are no identifiable lineal descendants . . . or the lineal descendants, upon notice, have failed to make a claim for the object. (104 Stat. 3054–55) Several issues can arise when a museum or agency is requested to repatriate items, and Congress

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

126

Historical Periods

anticipated many of these circumstances. For example, repatriation can be delayed in the case of items that are “indispensable for completion of a specific scientific study, the outcome of which would be of major benefit to the United States” (104 Stat. 3055). The return of such items may be delayed until ninety days after the date on which the scientific study is completed. It is also possible that a museum or agency believes that it came into possession of an item legitimately. In the case of requests for repatriation of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, the NAGPRA sets out the method for establishing the validity of the parties’ claim to the item. The party requesting repatriation must present evidence supporting the request, and if the evidence, standing alone, would support a finding that the agency or museum did not have the right of possession, then the agency or museum must return the objects “unless it can overcome such inference and prove that it has a right of possession to the objects” (ibid.). An agency or museum has a right of possession when an item was obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual or group that had authority to give the item. Museums and agencies have a right of possession to human remains and associated funerary objects that were obtained “with full knowledge and consent of the next of kin or the official governing body of the appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe” (104 Stat. 3050). More than one party might request remains or objects. In such a case, if the agency or museum cannot clearly determine which requestor should receive the item, the agency or museum may retain the item until either the requesting parties agree upon its disposition or the dispute is resolved by a court. The NAGPRA also established a review committee composed of representatives from tribal communities and from museums and scientific groups to monitor the implementation of the statute and advise the secretary. One of the committee’s duties is to “facilitate resolution of disputes” among Indian tribes, lineal descendants, museums, and agencies (104 Stat. 3056). This is a voluntary process and, although the committee’s recommendations are not legally binding, they can be introduced as evidence in later litigation. The NAGPRA imposes an affirmative duty on agencies and museums to share whatever information they possess regarding an object in question

www.abc-clio.com

with known lineal descendants and Indian tribes, in order to assist them in making their claim for repatriation. The statute even puts aside any state laws that might prevent a museum from repatriating cultural items by immunizing museums from claims of “breach of fiduciary duty, public trust, or violations of state law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter” (104 Stat. 3055). Finally, the statute imposes penalties. For example, a museum that fails to comply with the statute may be assessed a civil penalty by the secretary of the interior. Persons who knowingly purchase, sell, or transport Native American human remains can be fined or even jailed for up to a year; a subsequent violation increases the possible jail time to five years. Similar punishments can be imposed for selling, purchasing, or transporting cultural items obtained in violation of the act. The NAGPRA is a remarkable piece of legislation in several respects. First, it created (or perhaps restored) Indian property interests in items that had long since passed out of Indian possession. A few decades ago, there was little reason to believe that Congress might act with sensitivity to ancient claims to cultural items, but the modern era of Indian policy made such a thing possible. The fact that Congress overrode the resistance of powerful and influential scientific institutions such as universities and museums, creating affirmative obligations for these institutions to return precious objects from their collections to the tribes, is no small matter, either. Above all, Congress’s rejection of the tendency of science to treat human remains as mere objects of study, and Congress’s alignment of itself and the law with the idea of affording these Indian ancestors the dignity that many tribal traditions demand, suggest that the prevailing approach to law and policy in Indian affairs has changed dramatically from the bad old days of allotment and termination.

Conclusion Statutes have defined U.S. policy toward the tribes from the beginning. The treaties were extensions of the statutes in that they represented the application of prevailing policy to particular tribes and particular situations. Since the end of treaty making in 1871, though, statutes have come to dominate the definition of tribal rights and the rights of individual Indians as members of tribes. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has plenary power over tribes

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation

and Indian property. The federal courts do not consider the wisdom or good faith of congressional enactments, so tribal rights exist at the sufferance of Congress. Federal policies have swung wildly over the years from policies designed to assimilate Indians by coercion and dismantle tribal institutions to policies intended to empower tribal governments. The consequence of inconsistent policies is a body of statutory law and factual circumstances that has led the Supreme Court to limit the authority of tribal governments, particularly over nonmembers. While the Court has simultaneously prevented the application of state laws to Indians on their reservations, the result is a patchwork of jurisdictional authorities, with tribes, states, and the United States all having extensive authority, depending on the particular circumstances. The current policy of self-determination for tribal governments is also driven by statutes. The statutes of the self-determination era differ from their predecessors in important respects. Most notably, the existence of a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that is responsive to tribal interests and the growing tribal activism in federal and state electoral politics has given the tribes a strong voice in the federal legislative process. The result is that modern statutes quite often are passed at the urging of tribes, and few if any major statutes are passed in the face of strong tribal opposition. Thus, the extraordinary authority of the Congress over Indian tribes—the plenary power—right now is being used in ways that favor tribes and in ways that the tribes favor. None can say for how long this will be true. It does appear, however, that tribal statutory rights will continue to exist, and quite possibly to expand, for the indefinite future. Kevin Gover References and Further Reading Court Cases Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. Reports 645 (2001). Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. California, 480 U.S. Reports 202 (1987). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. Reports 1 (1831). Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. Reports 163 (1989). Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. Reports 676 (1990). Fisher v. District Court, 425 U.S. Reports 696 (1976). Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. Reports 553 (1903). McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 411 U.S. Reports 164 (1973).

www.abc-clio.com

127

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. Reports 30 (1989). Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. Reports 463 (1976). Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. Reports 544 (1981). Nevada et al. v. Floyd Hicks et al., 533 U.S. Reports 353 (2001). Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. Reports 191 (1978). Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. Reports 832 (1982). Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. Reports 44 (1996). Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. Reports 438 (1997). United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. Reports 734 (1986). United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. Reports 375 (1886). United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. Reports 193 (2004). United States v. Anthony Robert Wheeler, 435 U.S. Reports 313 (1978). Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Sate Tax Commission, 380 U.S. Reports 685 (1965). White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. Reports 136 (1980). Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. Reports 217 (1959). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. Reports 515 (1832). Statutes American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Public Law 95-341 August 11, 1978–92 Stat. 469. 95th Congress. Joint Resolution [S.J. Res. 102]. 42 USC 1996 Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Public Law 95–608, 92 U.S. Statutes at Large 3269, November 8, 1978. Indian Civil Rights Act of 1986, Public Law 90–284, 82 U.S. Statutes at Large 77, April 11, 1968. Indian Education Act, Public Law 92–318, 86 U.S. Statutes at Large 334, June 23, 1972. Indian Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93–638, 88 U.S. Statutes at Large 2213, January 4, 1975. Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act, Public Law 92–318, 86 U.S. Statutes at Large 334, June 23, 1972. Indian Financing Act of 1974, Public Law 93–262, 88 U.S. Statutes at Large 77, April 12, 1974. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law 100–497, 102 U.S. Statutes at Large 2467, October 17, 1988. Indian General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), Chapter 119, 24 U.S. Statutes at Large 388, February 8, 1887. Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94–437, 90 U.S. Statutes at Large 1400, September 30, 1976. Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, Public Law 97–459, 96 U.S. Statutes at Large 2517, January 12, 1983.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

128

Historical Periods

Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, Public Law 101–379, 104 U.S. Statutes at Large 473, August 18, 1990. Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Public Law 97–382, 96 U.S. Statutes at Large 1938, December 22, 1982. Indian Reorganization Act, Chapter 576, 48 U.S. Statutes at Large 984, June 18, 1934. Indian Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93–638, 88 U.S. Statutes at Large 2206, January 4, 1975. Indian Tribal Justice Act, Public Law 103–176, 107 U.S. Statutes at Large 2004, December 3, 1993. Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, Public Law 103–412, 108 U.S. Statutes at Large 4239, October 25, 1994. National Museum of American Indian Act, Public Law 101–185, 103 U.S. Statutes at Large 1336–47, November 28, 1989. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Public Law 101–601, 104 U.S. Statutes at Large 3048, November 16, 1990. Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104–330, 110 U.S. Statutes at Large 4016, October 26, 1996. Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project Act, Public Law 102–184, 67 U.S. Statutes at Large 589, August 15, 1953. Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, Public Law 103–413, 108 U.S. Statutes at Large 4250, October 25, 1994. Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, Public Law 95–471, 92 U.S. Statutes at Large 1325, October 17, 1978. Books and Articles Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bernstein, Alison R. 1991. American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Canby, William C. 2004. American Indian Law in a Nutshell, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Clinton, Robert N. 1976. “Criminal Jurisdiction over Indian Lands: A Journey through a Jurisdictional Maze,” 18 Arizona Law Review 503. Cohen, Felix S. 1941. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Culin, Stewart. 1975. Games of the North American Indians. New York: Dover. Daily, David W. 2004. Battle for the BIA: G.E.E. Lindquist and the Missionary Crusade against John Collier. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Debo, Angie. 1984. A History of the Indians of the United States, Repr., Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes, Repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Repr., Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. Eadington, William S., and Judy Cornelius, eds. 1998. Indian Gaming and the Law. Reno: University of Nevada, Reno Bureau of Business. Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Frickey, Philip P. 1996. “Domestic Federal Indian Law,” 81 Minnesota Law Review 31. Goldberg, Carole E. 1975. “Public Law 280: The Limits of State Jurisdiction over Reservation Indians,” 22 University of California-Los Angeles Law Review 535. Kersey, Harry A., Jr. 1996. An Assumption of Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation among the Florida Seminoles 1953–1979. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Murphy, Mary Lynn. 2001. “Assessing NAGPRA: An Analysis of Its Success from a Historical Perspective,” 25 Seton Hall Legislative Journal 499. Newton, Nell Jessup. 1984. “Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations,” 132 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 195. Philp, Kenneth R. 1977. John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform 1920–1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pommersheim, Frank. 1989. “The Crucible of Sovereignty: Analyzing Issues of Tribal Jurisdiction,” 31 Arizona Law Review 329. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Trade and Intercourse Acts 1790–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Unabridged ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968–1969. 1970. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970. 1971. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1-800-368-6868

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation Riley, Angela R. 2002. “Indian Remains, Human Rights: Reconsidering Entitlement under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” 34 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 49. Riley, Thomas. 1988. “Federal Conservation Statutes and the Abrogation of Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: United States v. Dion,” 58 University of Colorado Law Review 699. Schlosser, Thomas P. 2001. “Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmembers,” 37 Tulsa Law Review 573. Suagee, Dean. 1998. “Tribal Self-Determination and Environmental Federalism: Cultural Values as a Force for Sustainability,” 3 Widener Law Symposium Journal 229. Taylor, Scott A. 1997. “An Introduction and Overview of Taxation and Indian Gaming,” 29 Arizona State Law Journal 251. Tellinghuisen, Roger A. 1989. “The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: A Practical Guide with [Limited] Commentary,” 34 South Dakota Law Review 660. Thomas, David Hurst. 2001. Skull Wars: Kennewick, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books.

www.abc-clio.com

129

Tsosie, Rebecca. 1997. “Negotiating Economic Survival: The Consent Principle and TribalState Gaming Compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,” 29 Arizona State Law Journal 25. Tweedy, Ann. 2005. “Using Plenary Power as a Sword: Tribal Civil Regulatory Jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act after United States v. Lara,” 35 Environmental Law 471. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2005. “Insurance, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004,” Current Population Reports, 60–229. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Washburn, Kevin. 2001. “Recurring Problems in Indian Gaming,” 1 Wyoming Law Review 427. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1986. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act of 1887). Repr., New York: Krieger. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1995. Red Man’s Land/White Man’s Law: The Past and Present Status of the American Indian, 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkins, David E. 2006. American Indian Politics and the American Political System, 2nd ed. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Property: Land and Natural Resources

T

reaties were the major mechanism for the massive transfer of land from American Indians to European Americans that has occurred in North America over the last three centuries. Even when the United States ceased making formal treaties in 1871, treaty substitutes continued to be used to formalize the dispossession of Indian land into the twentieth century. Land and the natural and biological resources associated with it were the Indian assets of the greatest commercial value to non-Indians; consequently, they have been the greatest source of conflict. Loss of land increasingly made traditional land-based economies impossible, undermining tribal social and political structures that were consistent with these traditional ways of life and jeopardizing traditional religious practices that were deeply tied to tribal homelands. The first property negotiations between Europeans and Indians on the eastern coast of North America were conducted by individual settlers to obtain small parcels of Indian land, generally in return for trade goods. However, European governments, through their colonial administrations, quickly took control of the land acquisition process by claiming sovereign rights as sole purchasers of Indian land. A major basis of these preemptive claims was that tribes were sovereigns, and negotiations between sovereigns were conducted through treaties. The U.S. government continued to claim the sole right to acquire Indian land parcels, which were then placed in the public domain, divided into smaller parcels, and subsequently sold to individual non-Indians. The eras of early federal Indian policy are labeled by the key processes through which Indian people were dispossessed of their land: removal, establishment of reservations, and allotment. After the War of 1812, when tribal alliances were no longer critical to the political balance of power among the colonial European nations, the United States forcibly removed entire tribes from their eastern homelands to Indian Territory, west of the Mississippi River. Removal was part of the increasingly coercive process used by the federal government to force tribes to relinquish their land. Although removal was formalized through treaties that guaranteed the remaining land rights of tribes, these guarantees were increasingly ignored when new groups of non-

T

Indians pushed onto Indian lands, established settlements and farms, and prospected for gold and other valuable natural resources. Between 1850 and 1870, much of the rest of the continental United States passed out of Indian hands. Unlike removal, treaties with tribes west of the Mississippi set aside small pockets of their traditional lands as reservations. These treaties generally included limited payments of goods and services for the land ceded by the tribes. In the 1870s, the federal government began the process of allotting small parcels of land to individual Indian heads of households, ostensibly to assimilate Indian people into the dominant society through small-scale farming. After the small allotments were assigned, the remaining tribal land was deemed surplus and sold. Over time, many Indian families were forced to sell their allotments to pay debts and property taxes. More than two-thirds of the remaining tribal lands were lost to Indian ownership by the time the allotment process was formally ended in 1934 by the Indian Reorganization Act. Although negotiated by the United States from an increasing position of power, treaties embodied the core legal concept that tribes retained inherent rights to the lands they did not cede—that is, treaties did not give Indian tribes land; instead, treaties were grants of land by tribes that also reserved lands for the practical use of their people. The term reservation comes from these reserved rights that were not specifically relinquished in treaty provisions. Reserved rights and the federal government’s responsibility as trustee for those rights have been critical to ongoing tribal legal claims to water, timber, and minerals, as well as fossil fuels important to energy production. These rights are also key issues in individual Indian claims against the federal government for mismanagement of oil, gas, and mineral royalties from their land. The termination policy of the federal government in the 1950s and early 1960s was intended to end tribal ownership of land. Part of the local impetus for termination of reservation trust status was the interest of lumber companies in the timber on reservation lands. From the 1940s through the 1970s, the U.S. Indian Claims Commission attempted to redress the illegal and uncompensated takings of Indian land. Much of the Claims Commission’s work involved

133 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

134

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

determination of the fair market value of lands at the time they were ceded, mostly through treaties. However, from a tribal perspective, the value of land as the foundation of society and culture and as having sacred meaning cannot be fully compensated by money.

Traditional Land-Based Economies and Land Tenure American Indian peoples had long-standing knowledge of the land on which they lived and from which they made a living. As with most indigenous peoples throughout the world, American Indian cultural identity was closely associated with the specific ecosystems and landmarks of tribal homelands. The rich and varied ecosystems of the North American continent provided the basis for the diverse traditional economies of the Native peoples. These systems for making a living included hunting and gathering, harvesting of fish, and agricultural production throughout much of the temperate areas of the continent. These traditional economies varied in the amount of land and population required for subsistence. Most hunting and gathering populations need to move throughout their territories in a seasonal cycle and have relatively low population densities. Much of Native North America had a mixed economy, which included hunting and gathering as well as agricultural production. The crops domesticated by American Indians—primarily the triumvirate of corn, beans, and squash, particularly when supplemented with protein from meat obtained by hunting—provided a balanced and nutritional diet. Indian tribes in the arid Southwest practiced laborintensive, irrigated agriculture that depended on an adequate supply of surface water and required comparatively dense, sedentary populations. One significant variable affecting Indian land use and land tenure was the effect of European diseases on the American Indian population. European populations had been exposed for centuries to Old World bacterial and viral infections and had developed substantial immunity to these diseases. American Indians were assaulted by these new pathogens, which led to high mortality rates from disease as each new tribal population was exposed. As Europeans settlers increased in numbers through both immigration and natural population growth, Native populations experienced declines. As a consequence, early agreements by tribal populations permitting small settlements of Europeans within their traditional territories in exchange for trade goods

www.abc-clio.com

did not put pressures on the access to and use of land. However, as more non-Indians took more land, conflicts increased. U.S. Indian policy increasingly pushed Indian people toward the most sedentary lifestyles that required the least amount of land. This policy was used to justify the continual renegotiation and dictating of the provisions of treaties and the resulting reduction of tribal landholdings. The federal government intended to force Indian people to assimilate into non-Indian society and to participate in the market economy. This goal was to be accomplished by reducing Indian landholdings and making it impossible to continue the more land-extensive economies that prevailed in much of Native North America. As he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France in 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote that tribes would learn to use less land and that settlers would need more (Jennings 1975). These policies were often justified by rhetoric about the wastefulness of nonsedentary ways of life. In practical terms, without the experience and the resources (money for equipment and seeds, arable land, enough water), Indian people often faced starvation when deprived of the lands, water, plants, and animals upon which they knew how to subsist.

Land as Real Property European and American Indian societies alike held ideals about how land, water, and natural resources were to be used and allocated. Communal land use was not completely foreign to Europeans, in whose home countries were areas designated as commons, often used by the poor or commoners. General recognition of the tribal system of common land tenure is seen in the congressional reaction to the initial Wyandot treaty of 1817. The initial treaty provided for the land not ceded by the Wyandot to be recorded as fee simple titles to individuals. The Senate Committee on Public Lands expressed concern that this process was unprecedented. They required that the treaty be renegotiated and that the Wyandot land be held “as before,” that is, in common (Prucha 1994). However, by the 1600s the European system of real property consisted overwhelmingly of individual ownership of land with sole legal title. In the Western legal tradition, valuables used in common and to which no individual can claim exclusive rights, such as the oceans or the air, are not considered property. American Indian cultures generally viewed land as commonly held, with recognition of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Property: Land and Natural Resources

use rights to extended families, lineages, and clans that worked a particular field, hunted for game, or harvested fish. Many Indian populations also recognized family hunting and trapping territories. Chief Isparhecher of the Muscogee Creek noted to federal officials in the 1890s that the Creek system of land tenure, in which land was held in common, had proven successful and satisfactory throughout their tribal existence. He emphasized that the Creek did not have homelessness or lawsuits about land titles. Similarly, in opposition to proposals to allot their land in Oklahoma, Chief Wilson Jones of the Choctaw explained that the land use system of the Choctaw avoided disputes because the Choctaw people owned the homes and lands of their grandfathers (Banner 2005, 265). In general, the Native systems for use of land tended to be flexible to meet the needs of society as some families and lines grew and others diminished. Some rich ecosystems, such as woodlands and coasts, had territories used by more than one family, band, or tribal group. In some locations, there were buffer zones between Native groups that may have been involved in hostilities over use of land (Sutton 1975). Clearly, when American Indians first entered into land agreements with Europeans, they did so from an economic, social, political, and cultural context different from the one familiar to the non-Indian people with whom they were interacting. It is likely that Indian people intended to provide use rights for, not perpetual sole ownership of, a parcel of land when they were said by Europeans to be “selling” land. These issues of differing contexts of understanding were exacerbated by basic challenges of communication; in many cases, agreements were reached between representatives who did not speak the same language, and negotiations were conducted through interpreters. Furthermore, tribes used oral tradition and symbolic goods, such as wampum belts, to memorialize agreements and transactions. Europeans and, later, the federal government always used written documents as the final record. The opportunity for abuse, misrepresentation, and gross misunderstanding of legalistic terms was substantial. Many Indian people signed treaties based on what they heard, but non-Indians always held them to what was written (Banner 2005).

Who Had the Right to Sell Tribal Land? A key question in Indian land deals was, Who had legal authority to negotiate regarding commonly

www.abc-clio.com

135

held land? Non-Indians often exploited, and exacerbated for the purpose of acquiring land, the varying interests of different individuals and groups within tribes. Particularly in the early stage of land sales, the individual Indian who first sold a particular parcel of land to non-Indians may have received cash or goods for lands that were considered the territory of a larger group. In the late 1700s, there were complaints within eastern tribes that their sachems and other leaders had become corrupt, accepting bribes and payments for personal gain in negotiations that affected the land of the entire tribal group. The U.S. Constitution requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties, and many federal treaties with Indian tribes contained provisions that required approval by a majority or threefourths of the adult male members of a tribe. However, Indian peoples had a variety of political structures, which varied from informal forms of leadership within small groups to large-scale political alliances among numerous tribal groups who spoke different languages and had different cultural traditions. But a majority or even super-majority “vote” when members have essentially equal ownership of land certainly seemed unfair to those Indian people who opposed particular negotiations and treaties. Some misunderstandings may have occurred when non-Indians interpreted the political structure of American Indian societies and assumed that some leaders had more authority than they actually had. There were also cases in which nonIndians created authority in individual Indian people that did not practically exist and used it to their advantage in securing treaties for land. In recognition of the difficulties posed by crosscultural communication and the standard of responsibility of the federal government as a tribal trustee, the Supreme Court developed rules of treaty interpretation in a series of cases in the 1930s. These rules, or canons, required that ambiguities in treaties be resolved in favor of Indian tribes, that treaties be interpreted as Indian people would have understood them at the time of signing, and that treaties be construed liberally in favor of tribal interests.

Sovereignty and Ownership When the United States was formed, it claimed sovereignty over huge areas in which it had no on-theground governance and where there was no real property ownership by non-Indians. Through the assertion of sovereignty, the development of the laws under which treaties were negotiated, and the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

136

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

growing power to enforce them, non-Indians increasingly controlled the acquisition of Indian land. This claim of sovereignty by the United States included a preemptive right to purchase title to Indian land and was intended to secure these rights to the exclusion of all other powers. Through preemption, the federal government acquired Indian land, dividing it into smaller parcels and selling it to white settlers. In 1868, the federal government attempted to sell eight million acres of land acquired from the Osage to commercial railroads rather than placing it in the “public domain.” Congress would not ratify the treaty, and it had to be renegotiated. The profit made by the United States by purchasing Indian land and selling it to non-Indians, in total the largest land deal in the history of the world, went into the federal treasury. Indian people, however, could only sell or cede their land to the United States, and ownership of land essentially always moved in one direction, from Indians to non-Indians. President Andrew Jackson argued that the United States should unilaterally take Indian land through the power of eminent domain and provide just compensation rather than negotiate treaties. In 1834, he enforced his view through the power of the U.S. military when he defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s rulings in the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia and forced the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears to leave their homelands and move to Indian Territory. However, the legal structure of treaties as agreements between sovereigns has proven to be the key source of legal land claims by tribes over time.

Mother Earth: The Value of Land and Natural Resources Land and the natural and biological resources linked to it were the primary assets Indian people had that were valuable to non-Indians. When Europeans first came to North America, Indian people traded furs, crops, and small parcels of land for the goods they wanted. Indian peoples with exposure to non-Indian society came to understand the unfairness of many land offers and began to ask for more per acre in treaty negotiations. However, within a hundred years after the Revolutionary War, the United States had taken two billion acres of Indian land, approximately one-half purchased by treaty or agreement and much of the rest confiscated by the federal government without compensation or formal action. Shortly after the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Treasury was nearly exhausted, and the federal gov-

www.abc-clio.com

ernment decided that it was much cheaper to buy Indian land through the process of making treaties than to go to war for it. Although the very earliest trades of land for goods may have been voluntary, the transactions became increasingly and profoundly coercive. By the 1850s, the military and political balance of power had shifted dramatically. Congress refused to ratify many treaties negotiated in the field with California tribes because the price was considered too high, even though the California Indians were forced onto mere patches of land and were starving. Overwhelmingly, money, goods, and services paid by non-Indians for land taken from Indian people were worth less than the fair market value of the land, even at the time of purchase. Because it had the power, the government did not pay the fair market value; it paid as little as it could. Some studies of the Indian Claims Commission, which adjudicated tribal land claims between 1947 and 1978, estimate that the United States paid about ten cents per acre for Indian land in the northern plains in the mid-1800s, when the average price paid by white settlers was closer to two dollars (Prucha 1994, 230). The Constitution of the United States requires the government to pay just compensation for the land it acquires; just compensation is almost always determined through an appraisal based on the market economy. But if the seller does not agree with the price offered, the taking is more a confiscation than a compensation. Can money or goods ever be fair compensation for the land of people whose way of making a living, social structure, and religion are directly tied to the land? Many Indian people over the decades have eloquently expressed the view that monetary value cannot be placed on the land, water, plants, animals, and sacred places. The Native worldview consistently valued the land and the living world not as resources to be exploited or property to be bought and sold but in familial or kinship terms, such as “Mother Earth.” Although monetary compensation may have benefited some Indian people individually, loss of land was destructive to tribal ways of life that were closely tied to knowledge of particular ecosystems and territory. These knowledge systems were passed on from generation to generation and were internal to Indian culture and societies. Without tribal homelands, the intergenerational transmission of language and culture was made extremely difficult. Indian people and leaders often expressed their desire to maintain their traditional lifestyles and their independence from white

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Property: Land and Natural Resources

society and from the markets their independent lifestyles afforded them. Elders of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation spoke metaphorically about the relative value of land and money during their struggle to prevent the flooding of their land by the construction of Orme Dam in the 1970s and 1980s: “Land is like diamonds, money like ice. The land stays forever but money melts through your fingers” (Mariella 1990). Similar sentiments have been expressed by Indian people throughout the last two hundred years as they faced the prospect of trying to maintain their identity when they no longer had their homelands.

Treaties between Tribes, Colonial Powers, and the United States before the War of 1812 Colonial governments rapidly took control of the acquisition of land, preempting the right as a sovereign government to negotiate and conclude treaties with the Native peoples. Early treaty making between tribes and European nations and, subsequently, the United States were mechanisms to secure alliances and peace between sovereigns. When the British relinquished their American colonies in the Treaty of Paris in 1783, all the land over which the Crown had claimed sovereignty east of the Mississippi River became part of the United States. Even the tribes who fought with the colonists were legally subsumed, although the treaty said nothing about Indian lands. The new nation was too weakened militarily and too poor from fighting the Revolutionary War to forcibly acquire Indian lands. Instead, the federal government set about acquiring title to Indian lands through treaties, primarily in exchange for trade goods (e.g., the Treaty of Fort Harmar in 1789, the Treaties of Fort Stanwix in 1768 and 1784, and the Treaty of Fort McIntosh in 1785). Purchases of Indian land were complicated by the sometimes long process of determining boundaries as well as joint ownership.

Removal: Land in Exchange for Land In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase from France of eight hundred thousand square miles nearly doubled the size of the United States. The federal government encouraged Indian people to move to the new territory, which was isolated from non-Indians. After the

www.abc-clio.com

137

War of 1812 and the end of the British threat to the United States, alliances with Indian tribes were no longer critical to the international balance of power on the North American continent. In a pattern that would repeat over the next fifty years, settlers on the frontier who were remote from the political seat of power pushed into the lands of the Cherokee, Muscogee Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole, the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. These settlers provoked conflict, forcing the federal government to act. With the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the United States military forcibly removed all the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi to Indian Territory. The southeastern tribes, all farming people, strongly opposed the removal but lacked the military capacity to challenge the army and the political strength to fight the executive power of the president. In 1814, the Creek were forced to surrender twenty-three million acres of land to the federal government and to move to Indian Territory. Subsequently, the Cherokee were forced to sign the Treaty of New Echota, in which they gave up their land east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land in Oklahoma Territory. The move, which was conducted under military escort, is known as the Trail of Tears.

Reservations: Payment for Ceded Lands The federal government expected that the removal of Indian tribes to Oklahoma Territory would isolate Indians from conflicts with non-Indians. However, when Texas, the Oregon country, and the lands of the Mexican Cession of 1848 became part of the United States, the federal government entered again into treaty making with the many tribes in these frontier territories. Tribes were forced onto relatively small tracts of land, known as reservations. Between 1853 and 1856, fifty-two treaties were negotiated, more than in any other period, and close to 174,000,000 acres of Indian land were taken for nonIndian settlers and prospectors. Without any local control to stop them, white settlers put down stakes on Indian lands, creating a de facto ownership that the federal government was subsequently pressured to make permanent. After the Civil War, the Nez Perce were forced to accept the Stevens treaty (Treaty with the Nez Perce–June 9, 1863), which was then delayed in Congress while changes were debated; meanwhile, settlers continued to move into their lands, resulting in further land reductions.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

138

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

Reservation treaties listed the lands to be ceded to the United States in return for federal promises to provide goods and services and to form the basis for the doctrine of reserved rights established by the Supreme Court in Winters v. United States (1908). In addition, these treaties generally contained the federal government’s assurance that Indian people could live on their remaining lands in perpetuity or “as long as the water flows, the grass grows upon the earth or the sun rises.” Despite the eloquent promises of permanence, many treaties were broken to obtain even more land. By 1860, essentially no tribal lands remained east of the 98th meridian. In the next decade, following the end of the Civil War, most of the Indian lands in the interior of the continent were also taken from tribes. With passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Congress ended the practice of making formal treaties with tribes but stated clearly that the provisions of existing treaties remained intact. However, in 1903 the Supreme Court affirmed in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock that Congress had the authority to unilaterally abrogate treaties with Indian tribes as long as land takings were compensated. Later Supreme Court decisions established that reservations created by executive order and by statute have the same legal status as reservations created by treaties.

Allotments: Private Ownership of Land The General Allotment Act of 1887 (the Dawes Act) was intended to assimilate American Indians into white society and the market economy through small-scale farming. Indian male heads of household were to be allotted land for homesites and farms; after a transition period, often twenty-five years, the land would pass out of reservation trust status and would be held as private property. In contrast, reservation land cannot be sold by tribes or individual Indians; only Congress can authorize the purchase or sale of reservation trust land. The process of dividing tribal reservation lands into small family farms also left acres of tribal land unallotted. The federal government deemed this land surplus, divided it, and sold it to non-Indian homesteaders. Like treaties, the provisions of the Dawes Act of 1887 required that payment be made for any land taken by the allotment process. However, the Department of the Interior rarely lived up to its responsibilities as a trustee, and tribes generally did not receive adequate compensation for their surplus land.

www.abc-clio.com

The allotment process left a legacy of complicated land tenure on the reservations that underwent allotment. Once allotments passed out of trust status, individual Indians then had to pay real property taxes, and much of the land was sold to pay taxes and other debts. More than two-thirds of the remaining tribal lands in the continental United States was lost to Indian people during the allotment era. Allotments on a number of reservations remain in trust status, and the lease and homestead rights are inherited. Over many generations, ownership of allotments has become highly fractionated, sometimes with more than one hundred owners for a single acre, making it increasingly difficult for individual allottees and their descendants to make economic use of the allotment rights. The development challenges of fractionated inheritance resulted in the 1982 Indian Land Consolidation Act, in which tribes were given first right of refusal to buy fractionated and privately held land within reservation boundaries. In addition, the historic sale of allotments created checkerboarded land ownership patterns within a number of reservations, in which parcels of Indian land are separated by land owned by nonIndians. These checkerboarded patterns of land ownership on some reservations make it hard for those tribes to conduct regulatory activities and law enforcement. Some individual Indian people made considerable income from royalties, leasing their allotted lands for economic development; but the transition to the market economy was very difficult for the many individuals who were left without their land and with no money. Without the experience and education to manage money, many individual Indians were not able to create long-term financial security from land sales or lease income. Without tribally held lands, tribal social and political structures were no longer as meaningful, and small parcels of land were not adequate to develop tribal projects that would benefit the tribe as a whole. Uniformly, allotment had deleterious effects on tribal cohesion. Partly in recognition of the harm done to Indian assets and tribal life, the Indian Reorganization Act ended the practice of allotment in 1934.

Termination, Restoration, and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement With the return of Indian veterans from World War II, federal Indian policy shifted to one of termination, in which treaty rights were ended and trust sta-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Property: Land and Natural Resources

tus removed from all the tribal land base. In two key termination cases, involving the Menominee of Wisconsin and the Klamath of Oregon, pressures to terminate the tribes came from interest in the commercially valuable timber on their land. After more than two decades of struggle, tribal status was restored to both tribes in the 1970s. The most recent treaty-like settlement affecting significant amounts of tribal land in the United States is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Alaska Natives did not sign treaties with the federal government, and it had been unclear what aboriginal title meant in Alaska. The Settlement Act gave forty-four million acres to Alaska Natives and provided $962 million for relinquishment of the remainder of their land claims.

Mining In the 1870s, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills area of what is now western South Dakota, northeastern Wyoming, and southeastern Montana led to a sequence of broken federal treaty promises that stands out even in the lengthy history of treaty abrogation. The impetus behind the relentless pressure to take the land of the Lakota Indians of the northern plains was the commercial value of the gold, silver, and other minerals in the Black Hills. By the late 1850s, the large buffalo herds that had sustained the Plains Indians had been hunted by non-Indians almost to extinction. The loss of the buffalo and the resulting blow to the ability of the Plains tribes to maintain an independent tribal life led to the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851. In the initial treaty, the Lakota retained a significant portion of their Black Hills land in the Great Dakota Reservation. The Black Hills were sacred to the Lakota people and were the location of ceremonies, vision quests, and burials. However, government negotiators pressured a group of Lakota to sign a second treaty in 1868 that reduced their land base from sixty million acres to twenty million. This treaty guaranteed the security of the remaining land from the white settlers, who sparked conflicts by constant incursions into the reservation. The federal government viewed the Fort Laramie treaty as a way to force the Plains Indians out of their traditional hunting way of life into smallscale agriculture. But the climate and soils of the arid northern plains presented substantial challenges for sustained agricultural production and was a profoundly different way of life from the buffalo-based culture the Plains tribes knew.

www.abc-clio.com

139

When gold was discovered in the Black Hills in the 1870s, the federal government pressured the Lakota to accept the removal of the Black Hills from their already-reduced reservation by refusing to provide provisions as required by earlier treaties and which were necessary to avoid starvation. In 1877, Congress enacted a new treaty with only 10 percent of the adult male Lakota signing, in direct conflict with the three-fourths requirement of the earlier Fort Laramie treaty. Although the Lakota had been guaranteed by treaty in 1874 that no additional land would be taken, the treaty of 1877 removed the sacred Black Hills from their reservation. Twelve years later, in 1889, Congress again removed half of the reservation acreage and divided the remaining land into six separate reservations. Any resistance to this action was ended with the killing by U.S. soldiers of scores of unarmed Lakota at Wounded Knee in 1890. Between 1904 and 1910, Congress removed additional lands from the six reservations, including three-fourths of the Rosebud Reservation. In the first year after the Black Hills were taken from the Lakota Reservation, mining companies and prospectors extracted approximately $3.5 million in gold. This figure increased to $4.5 million in 1879 and to $6 million in 1880. The Black Hills also yielded silver, lead, coal, iron, quartz, nickel, and copper. Major mining operations on what once had been Lakota Reservation lands included the Homestake and Gilt Edge Mines, which became some of the most productive and profitable mines in the United States. Never abandoning their cultural and spiritual relationship to the Black Hills, the Lakota filed a claim in the federal court of claims in 1920 requesting the return of the Black Hills. Despite its authorization to adjudicate claims against the United States under treaties, agreements, or federal laws, the court did not review whether the treaty of 1877 provided just compensation to the Lakota. Not until the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission by act of Congress in 1946 did a new opportunity develop; in 1950 the Lakota filed a claim. In 1967, eight tribes were awarded $12.21 million dollars in compensation from the Claims Commission for twenty-nine million acres taken from them through treaties. The Claims Commission ruled that the United States had used eminent domain to seize their land rather than acting in its role as trustee. Consequently, the United States owed them compensation for the Black Hills.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

140

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

As the legal efforts were slowly working their way through the Claims Commission and the courts, the State of South Dakota established parks in the Black Hills, making it increasingly difficult for the Lakota to practice their sacred ceremonials. The American Indian Treaty Rights Movement of the 1970s grew out of the Lakota struggle to regain the Black Hills. Members of the American Indian Movement established the Yellow Thunder Camp in the Black Hills to raise awareness of the sacred value of the land, and lawsuits were filed under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978, claiming that the seizure of hills was a violation of Lakota religious rights. In 1980, the Supreme Court affirmed the Claims Commission and ruled that the tribes were due cash compensation for the fair market value of the Black Hills at the time land was taken, plus interest—a sum of close to $122.5 million. The fair market value determination did not include the value of minerals extracted from the land by mining corporations, which has been estimated to be close to $4 billion. National news was made when many tribal members refused the compensation, asking instead for the return of the Black Hills. Some attempts were made in Congress in the late 1980s to reach a settlement, but the issue remains unsettled at the time of this writing. Further attention was focused on the Black Hills during the 1980s, when non-Indians, concerned about environmental degradation from stripmining of coal deposits and leaching of cyanide into groundwater from decades of gold extraction, joined with Native Americans in developing the Black Hills Alliance. In Oklahoma, the oil boom, which began in the 1890s, had a major impact on Indian lands, including the lands of the Osage tribe. The Osage were forced from their homelands in present-day Missouri and Arkansas into Indian Territory through a series of treaties throughout the 1800s. After ceding close to 45 million acres, the Osage purchased 1.4 million acres in 1870 from the Cherokee for a new reservation in the northeastern portion of Indian Territory. These lands were not sought after by non-Indians until oil was discovered underneath them in 1875. Immediately after the discovery of oil, non-Indians sought leases on the Osage Reservation for mining oil and gas. Many of these initial leaseholders leased substantial portions of land and subleased them. In some cases, these leaseholders made substantially more from the Osage lands than the Osage themselves had. In 1904, the reservation was allotted;

www.abc-clio.com

each adult Osage male received about 650 acres of surface rights with fee simple title. The individual Osage landowners were able to develop, lease, or sell their land. However, the subsurface mineral rights were held in common, and each Osage received a headright—that is, he or she would receive an equal share of all income from oil and gas production from their tribal lands. In the early 1900s, the Osage tribe declared it illegal to sell a headright, which by 1917 was worth $2,719; the value increased to over $8,000 in 1920. As a consequence, individual Osage experienced substantial increases in income. Although some tribe members had the experience and skills to control and manage this income, others spent the money or were manipulated into spending it in ways that did not result in increased quality of life or long-term financial security. The infusion of substantial income from oil headrights also increased conflict and violence within the tribe and attracted a number of non-Indians looking to marry into wealth. The intermarriage with non-Osage further affected tribal cohesion and tribal identity (Fixico 1998). Today, more than half the nation’s coalfields are located west of the Mississippi River; one-third of those western fields are on tribal lands. An estimated 25 to 40 percent of the uranium, one-third of the coal, and 5 percent of oil and gas are on reservations in the western part of the United States, including Black Mesa on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations (Ambler 1990). The federal government, in its role as trustee of tribes, has the responsibility to manage those resources for the primary benefit of those tribes. The poor oversight, poor record keeping, and poor advocacy of the Department of the Interior in approving leasing and royalty arrangements for the historical extraction of the mineral resources of Indian land is the subject of the current Elouise Cobell lawsuit in federal court. With the technical and legal assistance of national organizations such as the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, tribes are increasingly managing their own resources. The building of tribal environmental management and regulatory capacity since the 1980s has supported the goal of protecting land, water, and air quality and ecosystems. However, the power of Congress to override treaty provisions through statute, which was confirmed in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in 1903, continues to have the potential to affect tribal ability to protect tribal resources. In 2005, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma added a rider to a national transportation bill that removed the ability of Oklahoma tribes to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Property: Land and Natural Resources

regulate water quality under federal clean water laws without the approval of the State of Oklahoma.

Timber The Klamath and Modoc tribes of what is now southeastern Oregon lived, hunted, and fished in the Pacific Northwest coastal region, one of the most productive ecosystems in the United States. The Native peoples of this area were largely sedentary harvesters of the exceptionally rich and reliable fish populations, such as salmon, which spawned annually in the rivers that flowed through their lands. In addition, the homelands of the Klamath included commercially valuable forests of ponderosa pine and mixed conifers. The desire to protect their valuable timberlands was a major reason the Nez Perce treaty of 1863 was reopened, even though settlers were pushing into more of their lands day by day. The federal government pressured the Klamath into the treaty of 1864, which established their reservation and ceded more than 23 million acres, which included valuable timberlands. Having seriously reduced access to their traditional hunting and fishing resources, the Klamath and the Modoc tribes took up ranching of cattle and horses and developed a small sawmill in 1870. By 1896, sales of Klamath timber were close to 250,000 board feet per year. Following federal Indian policy of the time and in response to local pressures for more land, the federal government divided the Klamath Reservation into allotments in the 1890s. The allotments were 80 acres of farmland or 160 acres of grazing land per person; the sale of “surplus” reservation land that was not allotted resulted in the additional loss of more than 100,000 acres. By the end of the allotment period in 1934, 10 percent of the land within the reservation was privately owned by individual Klamath Indians; some 860,000 acres were still held in common. As with so many situations in which allotted lands moved out of trust status and into private ownership, Klamath landowners ended up selling or losing 95 percent of their privately owned land. However, on the tribal lands, it was estimated there was $80 million worth of ponderosa pine. The Klamath tribe managed its forests for long-term yield, but the timberlands that had moved out of tribal hands were cut at a faster rate, reducing their ability to sustain healthy wildlife populations and continued logging. After World War II, local timber interests and some members of the Klamath tribe wanted to

www.abc-clio.com

141

remove the trust status protecting the remaining Klamath timber, in order to cut lumber at a faster rate. In 1954, Congress withheld a $2.6 million settlement to pressure for termination of the federal trust status of the Klamath lands. These interests in exploiting the timber in an unsustainable way were part of the drive that led to the termination policy of the 1950s and 1960s, under which both tribal land and allotted land in trust would become individually held, private land. However, most of the tribe members opposed the removal of the trust status, and a Bureau of Indian Affairs report of the time stated clearly that, as a group, the Klamath were not prepared to succeed financially if the trust status were removed. Congress passed the Klamath Termination Act, working with the support of a small segment of the tribal membership. The reservation land was taken by condemnation and the tribal trust status terminated in 1961. Termination released all tribal property that contained rich timberlands, including fifty thousand acres with 3.8 billion board feet of commercial lumber. As a result, significant stands of timber were clear-cut, reducing the longterm productivity of the timberlands but increasing erosion of the soil and pollution of local streams. Despite the termination of the tribe, in 1974 the Klamath won an initial victory when the federal courts ruled that the Klamath retained treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather in their traditional territories and had to be consulted in land management decisions when those decisions affected their treaty rights. Then, in 1986, after years of political and legal effort, Public Law 99–398 restored federal recognition of the Klamath tribe as a governmental entity. Like the Klamath, the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin, which has substantial timberlands, was also terminated and then restored to federal tribal status in 1973. Although restoration of the tribe did not return the Klamath land base to tribal status, the development of the Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency Plan resulted in the tribe’s continued pivotal role in the local economy. Klamath Tribal Forest Management Plans are designed to protect the natural resources of the tribe so that they are not degraded for future generations. This long-term perspective is a core element of a tribal worldview that seeks quality of life for the tribe as a whole. In the twenty-first century, tribes are buying back land, controlling their own extractive industries, and managing water quality, timber, and other natural resources in a sustainable way that does not

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

142

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

degrade the resources over time. Tribal control of development enables resources to be managed for the future of Native nations for generations to come. Patricia S. Mariella References and Further Reading Ambler, Marjane. 1990. Breaking the Iron Bonds. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clinton, Robert N., Kevin Gover, and Rebecca Tsosie. 2004. “Introduction.” In Colonial and American Indian Treaties: A Collection. Tempe: Arizona State University American Indian Law Program. Debo, Angie. 1966. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. New York: Gordian Press. (Orig. pub. 1940). Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Franks, Kenny A. 1989. The Osage Oil Boom. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Heritage Association. Hughes, J. Donald. 1983. American Indian Ecology. El Paso: Texas Western Press. Jennings, Francis. 1975. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Jorgensen, Joseph G., ed. 1984. Native Americans and Energy Development. Boston: Anthropology Resource Center and Seventh Generation Fund.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Lawson, Michael L. 1982. Damned Indians: The PickSloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944–1980. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mariella, Patricia. 1990. “Land Like Diamonds, Money Like Ice.” Practicing Anthropology, 12(2): 8–9. McNickel, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, Watson. 1982. Gold in the Black Hills. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Rollings, Willard H. 1995. The Osage: An Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the PrairiePlains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Stern, Theodore. 1965. The Klamath Tribe: A People and Their Reservation. Seattle: University of Washington Press. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sutton, Imre. 1975. Indian Land Tenure. New York: Clearwater. Williams, Robert A. 1997. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Terry P. 1985. The Underground Reservation: Osage Oil. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

1-800-368-6868

Indian Water Rights and Treaties

I

I

n the eastern United States, the states have regulated the use of water by a system of riparian rights that came down from English law, in which all who own land along a water source have the right to the use of the water of that source. However, this system has worked well only in places with average to heavy rainfall, where the utilization of water by upstream users does not have a detrimental effect on downstream users. In the arid lands of the American West, where most American Indians reside, water rights are governed by state laws founded on the principle of prior appropriation. Prior appropriation can be best summed up by the principle “First in time, first in right.” In practical terms, this means that the oldest water right is satisfied in full before later users can have any access to the water supply. In other words, the first to make beneficial use of the water has the right to all the water they originally used. Whatever remains after the first claimant’s use of the water is the property of the second claimant, and so on down the line. This worked well in the nineteenth-century West, as the institutions necessary to govern and determine rights in a riparian system were lacking. In a system of prior appropriation, the users themselves were able to determine the first in right, at least initially. The Supreme Court, however, has long recognized that both federal and Indian water rights exist outside of the state-regulated water rights systems and must be satisfied as well, creating a competing system of water allotment. Water policy, for the majority of American Indians in the West, has been determined by the implementation of two apparently contradictory methods of water allocation: the prior appropriation system and the reserved rights doctrine (also referred to as the Winters doctrine). Put succinctly, in signing treaties with the federal government that resulted in the creation of their reservations, Indians agreed to vast land cessions in return for guarantees that their reservation lands would be permanently reserved for Indian use and occupation. The Supreme Court ruled that, when the Indians did this, they reserved to themselves every right not specified in the treaty. Ownership of the land and, implicitly, its resources and all sovereignty not expressly relinquished to the federal government were rights reserved to the

Indian nation. The downside of this system, in terms of prior appropriation, is that the “priority date” assigned to the Indians was the date of the congressional act that created the reservation, rather than a date of “time immemorial,” which would seem more appropriate, given the lengthy tenure of Indians on their lands. This system of reserving rights based on reservation status has created some anomalies within Indian country. Land ownership has been the key to New Mexico Pueblo Indians’ water rights. The Pueblo nations have early priority dates derived from Spanish land grants and the U.S. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. Because of this, the Pueblos have “aboriginal” water rights. Unlike many other nations, the Pueblos reside on lands they have never left and from which they have never been forced by the United States. Although the United States recognized those prior holdings in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, thereby giving federal protection to the Pueblo rights to land and water, these rights do not depend on any federal action for their existence. During the twentieth century, however, most Indian nations have had to base their hopes for justice in water rights on federal court decisions. Congress had not passed any definitive, allencompassing water rights bills supporting or even defining their rights. The decision that formed the most generous basis for Indian water rights, the reserved rights doctrine, and thus the most contention with non-Indian water claimants is Winters v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that, when Indian reservations were established, the Indian nations and the United States implicitly reserved, along with the land, sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservations, which in most cases was farming. Therefore, according to the Winters doctrine, which was derived from the decision, Indian water rights are defined and governed by a body of federal law that recognizes that Indian nations have sovereignty over the water on their reservations. The Supreme Court held that Indian governments have jurisdiction over their members and over activities on the Indian reservations, and this has affected the ways in which Indians can use the water that flows

143 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

144

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

through or adjacent to their reservations. However, by shortsightedly handing down a decision but failing to provide any way of reconciling it with the prior appropriation system already in use, the Court did more to provoke further conflicts over water between Indian and non-Indian populations than it did to settle them. Winters did nothing at all to determine either the scope of its application or the parameters for determining the amount of water Indian nations could claim. Almost from the time the decision was handed down in 1908, and especially during the 1980s and 1990s, many nations have gone to court in an effort to quantify their federal water rights, even though it has often meant a serious diminution of the possible extent of those rights. Two issues are raised by federal government involvement in protecting Indian water rights and other Indian-held natural resources. First, the ownership of land and water rights is antithetical to many American Indian cultural and religious systems. Secondly, federal involvement raises the issue of the difference between the dependency of Indian nations on the federal government and self-determination with governmental protection. This has long been a difficult distinction to draw. Speaking in purely economic terms, by failing to promote and protect the right of Indian nations to develop their resources, the government perpetuates dependency and poverty. On the other hand, if it protects Indians’ interests and Indians’ rights to develop their resources, the federal government may be guilty of affecting Indian culture, but it can certainly not be said to be perpetuating dependency. Rather, the federal government would be acting to promote the health of the Indian economies necessary for true self-determination. The main reason for the continued difficulty in securing water rights under the Winters doctrine is that it has constantly come up against prior appropriation, the prevailing method of allocating water claims in the western United States. When the doctrine of prior appropriation is taken to include Indian use, the courts necessarily enter the picture to fix the amounts allocated by right to a given Indian nation as determined by its use of a particular water source. Because Indian reservations were established before most water uses began in the West, Indians often hold the oldest—and thus the most valuable— water rights. Many Indian groups have occupied land since time immemorial and thus also have strong, ancient priority claims to water for Indian uses. State water laws in the West often place a prior-

www.abc-clio.com

ity on the idea of beneficial use, which, more often than not, has to do with agriculture. Although many southwestern groups, such as the Pueblos, have an agricultural tradition that predates European contact, and others, such as the Jicarilla Apache, have a mixed-subsistence tradition, the factors of modern reservation life do not always mean that the Indian nations will use the water as the state or federal laws would prefer them to. Because Indian nations are theoretically not held to state laws in these matters, conflicts have continually arisen over which water rights doctrine is applicable to the adjudication of rivers that flow over Indian as well as non-Indian lands. The Winters doctrine would seem to support the view that Indians have a right to enough water to irrigate reservation agricultural lands, and yet the doctrine of prior appropriation supports the idea that, if the Indians did not historically irrigate their lands, then nonIndian water claimants would be substantiated. The courts then have to examine what water was reserved for use on the Indian reservations, how Indian water rights are quantified and used, and how these water rights are regulated and enforced. Because of the potential extent and great value of the water that could be claimed by Indian nations under the Winters doctrine, especially in the American West, where water has become increasingly scarce, Indian water rights have constantly been under attack in the federal and state courts and in other political arenas as well. As clearly contradictory as the two dominant systems of allocation (Winters and prior appropriation) may appear, the actual situation in practice has been both less contradictory and more confusing than the various federal decisions would make it seem. Historian Daniel McCool pointed out that these two contradictory theories of water allotment created a conflict of interest within the Justice Department. The Justice Department was to be the legal representative for all federal interests, so its official position in favor of prior appropriation in the West was in conflict with the reserved rights doctrine (Winters doctrine), which was supposed to determine Indian water rights. The Winters doctrine theoretically makes the prior appropriation doctrine irrelevant. In practice, however, federal irrigation and reclamation programs were rarely undertaken in the interests of Indian peoples, even when they were constructed adjacent to Indian lands. The Bureau of Reclamation, dedicated to the doctrine of prior appropriation and the promotion of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Water Rights and Treaties

non-Indian irrigated agriculture in the West, exercised great power and acted decisively in the interests of its constituents when allocating the waters made useful by its construction projects. Even though the Winters doctrine might have given the Indians a theoretically large claim to the waters of the West, battles over access to those waters occupied Indian nations, the federal and state courts, the Department of the Interior (both as the promoter of non-Indian development through the Bureau of Reclamation and as the defender of Indian rights through the Bureau of Indian Affairs), and Congress throughout the twentieth century. Even where the rights seem plain, the capriciousness of the courts toward Indian nations has meant that the nations have had to enter into lengthy and expensive litigation with no guarantee of success. Since the 1980s, the federal government has promoted negotiated settlements as the best way for all parties to resolve their water claims. Concluded and implemented at both state and federal levels, these settlements have, in many cases, ended the endless decades of litigation and carry with them the promise of delivering real, “wet” water to the Indian nations. Settlement negotiations have usually been started after an Indian nation or the United States has already become involved in a case involving water rights claimed by a state and other non-Indian water users. The negotiation necessary to achieve a water settlement involves the process of alternative dispute resolution, which allows all the interested parties to participate. This type of resolution is most effective when there are factual disagreements on technical data between the parties; therefore, they sometimes rely on court decisions to decide basic legal questions, such as the priority date of the reservation. Rather than seeking final adjudication in the courts, the parties use the court-determined data to achieve a solution that will satisfy some of the desires of all sides rather than all of the desires of one side. Indian water needs are addressed without eliminating non-Indian water uses, although usually neither side is able to achieve all its goals. Negotiations in a land of limited water like the American West mean that the Indian nations usually do not receive the full share of water determined by the Winters doctrine; but in return they often get

www.abc-clio.com

145

money for facilities or projects to put to use the water they are allocated. Such federal funding has allowed Indians to secure not only water rights but also delivered water put to beneficial use. At the same time, non-Indians gain the assurance that they will be able to continue using water without the constant threat of an assertion of Winters rights on the part of the Indian nations. Steven L. Danver

References and Further Reading Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of Law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Danver, Steven L. 2002. “Land, Water, and the Right to Remain Indian: The All Indian Pueblo Council and Indian Water Rights.” In Water on the Great Plains: Issues and Policies, eds. Peter J. Longo and David W. Yoskowitz, 141–167. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. Doherty, Robert. 1993. Disputed Waters: Native Americans and the Great Lakes Fishery. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. DuMars, Charles T., Marilyn O’Leary, and Albert E. Utton. 1984. Pueblo Indian Water Rights: Struggle for a Precious Resource. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hundley, Norris, Jr. 1978. “The Dark and Bloody Ground of Indian Water Rights: Confusion Elevated to Principle.” Western Historical Quarterly, 9: 477. Hundley, Norris, Jr. 1982. “The ‘Winters’ Decision and Indian Water Rights: A Mystery Reexamined.” Western Historical Quarterly 13: 17. McCool, Daniel. 1987. Command of the Waters: Iron Triangles, Federal Water Development, and Indian Water. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1992. Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the American West. Washington, DC: Island Press. Worster, Donald. 1985. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. New York: Oxford University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

T T

hroughout most of North America, indigenous subsistence traditionally depended on seasonal cycles of hunting, fishing, and gathering. Even among groups that adopted agriculture or pastoralism, wild animals and plants enriched diets while also providing security against the failure of crops or the loss of livestock. In many areas, traditional subsistence practices continued to furnish Indian families with food, clothing, shelter, and tools long after the introduction of European trade goods. Assimilationist policies and ecological changes gradually undermined these activities as white settlement spread across the continent, yet they still occupy an important place in the economic, social, and religious lives of indigenous communities from Alaska to Florida. Many tribes expressly reserved the right to continue hunting, fishing, and gathering on ceded lands through treaties with the U.S. government. Since the late nineteenth century, however, bitter disputes have developed regarding the exact nature and extent of Indian reserved rights. State authorities and private citizens have tried to restrict or prevent Native hunting, fishing, and gathering outside reservation boundaries. Indians have responded with civil disobedience, test cases, and repeated appeals to the federal government. Although the threat of abrogation remains, the federal courts have generally upheld treaty rights since the early twentieth century, and tribes have become co-managers of valuable natural resources. Tribal regulation of reserved rights and resources is an important element of modern sovereignty, but it also represents a significant departure from aboriginal practice. Before the negotiation of treaties, prime hunting, fishing, and gathering sites traditionally belonged to individuals and kin groups rather than to clearly defined and tightly bounded “tribes.” Among the Straits Salish-speaking peoples of Puget Sound, a man could fish wherever he and his wife had relatives, which generally meant anywhere in Straits Salish territory. Specific reef net and weir locations were owned by individuals who managed and maintained them on behalf of larger kin groups. Similarly, in the Columbia River basin, the rights to a particular fishing rock, island, or scaffold descended through inheritance, and the owner had to grant permission for others to use it. Fishing rights thus created a major incentive to marry out-

side one’s own village, as a person could thereby acquire access to several locations across a wide area. Hunting and gathering grounds also belonged to families with recognized usufructuary privileges, which could be more or less exclusive depending on the natural abundance of the resource in question. As one nineteenth-century American observed of the Ottawa and Ojibwe in Upper Michigan: The beaver dams . . . all have owners among the Indians, and are handed down from father to son. The sugar camps, or “sucreries,” as the Canadians call them, have all an owner, and no Indian family would think of making sugar at a place where it had no right. Even the cranberry patches, or places in the swamp and bush where the berry is plucked, are family property; and the same with many other things. Such kinship-centered systems of allocation differed significantly from the centralized tribal ownership outlined in treaties and court decisions, as well as from the European American conception of land and natural resources as marketable commodities. Consequently, the post-treaty period witnessed numerous disagreements within and between tribes in addition to disputes with state governments and non-Indian citizens. This essay focuses on the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes, which have been the primary arenas of treaty litigation in the United States, but the patterns evident in those regions hold for most others as well.

Native Interpretations of Treaty Rights At bottom, the determination of Native Americans to defend their treaty rights reflected indigenous conceptions of treaties, land, and natural resources that were fundamentally different from those of European Americans. Indians traditionally viewed animals, fish, and plants as nonhuman persons and potential sources of spiritual power as well as sustenance. To channel that power and to ensure abundant supplies of food, Native people performed ceremonies intended to show respect and gratitude for the assistance and sacrifices of their nonhuman “brothers and sisters.” In the Pacific Northwest, for

147 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

148

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

example, many groups held “first-foods” feasts before allowing their members to start hunting, fishing, and gathering. “At the beginning of each season,” recalled Vivian Adams (Yakama) in the early 1990s, “a special group of people was selected for the first gathering of the season’s offerings.” Chosen for their special skills and intimate knowledge of particular resources, these ceremonial leaders fasted and prayed for their people’s success in the coming harvest. “Upon return of the group, a feast was held: for the first digging, the first catch, the first picking, and the first kill.” Such individual and collective rituals of thanksgiving took place around Native North America, and many are still observed today (albeit in modified form) by Indians committed to traditional subsistence practices. Their ancestors reserved the right to continue those practices because they could not imagine living without them. U.S. treaty makers found it expedient to placate Indian concerns, but translation problems and differing cultural expectations often produced divergent interpretations of the treaties and the rights they protected. Whereas policymakers assumed that Indians would ultimately assimilate into white society, federal negotiators recognized that tribal leaders would not sign papers that failed to protect their access to important subsistence resources and sites. Therefore, in order to soften the shock of land cessions and ease the expected transition to European American lifeways, many treaties explicitly secured Indian rights to hunt, fish, and/or gather on ceded lands. As early as 1789, the Wyandot treaty stated that “individuals of the said nation shall be at liberty to hunt within the territory ceded to the United States, without hindrance or molestation, so long as they demean themselves peaceably, and offer no injury or annoyance to any of the subjects or citizens of the said United States.” The treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854 with the Lake Superior Ojibwe guaranteed “[t]he privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands the rivers, and the lakes included in the territory ceded . . . during the pleasure of the United States.” After Congress unilaterally ended formal treaty making in 1871, some executive orders, federal statutes, and congressional agreements secured Indian hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on ceded lands. In 1891, for instance, an executive order reducing the Colville Reservation in northeastern Washington State provided that “the right to hunt and fish in common with all other persons on [the ceded lands] shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged.”

www.abc-clio.com

During treaty councils, Indian representatives often specified the subsistence sites they wished to retain for their people. William Yallup, a descendant of a Yakama treaty signer, recalled that each of the chiefs at the Walla Walla council in 1855 “[gave] a description of what they had reserved in the way of food.” Their statements went unrecorded but likely echoed those made at the subsequent Wasco council in central Oregon, where several headmen expressed special concern for their food sources. “Our fishing place on the Columbia we wish to keep,” declared the Tenino chief Alexis. “The country you have shown us we are glad to live on it. That is all I have to say. I only came to talk of the fishing ground.” Simtustus, a Tygh spokesman, likewise explained: “The [Deschutes] have sustained us in fish. The Falls where we catch the fish, we would like to reserve it. You have seen our country where we get our roots, this is the country I spoke about.” The Indians had no intention of surrendering their means of survival, and the treaty commissioners consented to provide the necessary protection. In many cases, however, the provisions that secured Native subsistence rights also sowed the seeds of future controversy. Although the treaties did not give the Indians special privileges, as critics later claimed, the language of the documents often restructured indigenous rights in subtle yet significant ways. The treaties of 1854–1855 concluded in the Pacific Northwest offer a case in point. Each of the agreements made in the Oregon and Washington territories contained a virtually identical version of this article: The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land. By vesting subsistence rights in “confederated tribes and bands,” this clause purported to transform individual and familial entitlements into tribal ones. At the same time, it allowed competition from American citizens and introduced a false distinction between permanent “rights” and temporary “privi-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

leges.” The treaty commissioners foresaw the continuance of fishing at traditional sites but presumed that the Indians would abandon their other offreservation activities as assimilation proceeded and whites filled the surrounding country. Indians generally had different expectations, however, and they left the councils with very different understandings of the treaties. As members of oral cultures, most tribal leaders remembered the verbal explanations of the treaty terms rather than the words written in the official documents. They did not recognize the legalistic difference between rights and privileges, and the commissioners made no such distinction in their descriptions of the “fishing clause.” At the Point No Point council in 1854, for example, Washington territorial governor Isaac Stevens simply declared, “This paper secures your fish. Does not a father give food to his children?” The following year, using a chain of mixed-blood interpreters and Indian criers, Stevens informed the Indians at the Walla Walla meeting: You will be allowed to pasture your animals on land not claimed or occupied by settlers, white men. You will be allowed to go on the roads to take your things to market, your horses and cattle. You will be allowed to go to the usual fishing places and fish in common with the whites, and to get roots and berries and to kill game on land not occupied by the whites. All that outside the reservation. At the Wasco council, Oregon superintendent of Indian affairs Joel Palmer assured Native representatives that they “would always have the privilege to hunt, gather roots and berries, and fish.” These promises placed all subsistence activities on an equal footing and set no explicit limits on the purpose, time, or method of taking. Insofar as the Indians understood the phrase “in common with the whites,” they probably expected to exercise control over American citizens at the fisheries. They certainly never anticipated the imposition of federal, state, and tribal laws on a system regulated by custom and kinship. “The way we understood, the white man wouldn’t have any use for salmon, the berries and the roots,” recalled John Skannowa, whose uncle signed the Treaty of Middle Oregon; “[T]he white man wouldn’t eat that and didn’t know what that food was . . . Joel Palmer indicated that there would be no interference with the Indians’

www.abc-clio.com

149

fishing rights at all; that the white men just weren’t interested in fishing.” The canons of treaty construction established by the U.S. Supreme Court dictate that treaties must be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them at the time, that all doubtful or ambiguous terms must be resolved in favor of the Indians, and that treaties in general must be liberally construed to the benefit of the Indians. In practice, however, the courts have considered only express treaty or statutory language reserving off-reservation hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. Native oral traditions concerning treaties and treaty councils are typically dismissed as hearsay. For Indians steeped in orality rather than literacy, the agreements comprised everything said and solemnized at the councils, not merely the words written in the official documents. Decades later, descendants of treaty signers continued to relate stories of promises made but not recorded on paper. Most importantly, they insisted that their treaty rights had been reserved in perpetuity. As Yakama fishing rights activist David Sohappy, Sr., explained in 1978, his ancestors understood that the treaty would endure “as long as that mountain stood there, as long as the sun rose in the east and long as the grass grows green in the spring and the rivers flow. To me, that meant forever, not to be abrogated or changed or done away with any other way. That’s the way the old people talk.” The central issue in most state-tribal disputes has been the extent to which the states can regulate Indian hunting and fishing rights. Faced with declining stocks of fish and game as well as growing pressure from sport and commercial interests, state governments began implementing conservation programs in the late nineteenth century. Many conservation laws favored non-Indian commercial and recreational users over Indians, who found their offreservation subsistence activities increasingly constrained by a web of regulations governing illegal gear, trespassing, licensing, closed seasons, prohibited areas, catch limits, and the sale of game or fish. When Indians hunted or fished in violation of these laws—knowingly or unknowingly—state authorities arrested and prosecuted them for poaching. Many also had their guns or gear confiscated, adding to the economic and cultural hardships posed by the inability to take traditional resources for subsistence, ceremony, and sale. This concerted assault on their treaty rights confounded traditional Indians and tribal leaders, who generally regarded their foods as sacred gifts from the Creator, not the property of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

150

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

state governments representing alien intruders. “I was not brought from a foreign country and did not come here,” protested Chief Meninock of the Yakama Nation in 1915. “I was put here by the Creator. We had no cattle, no hogs, no grain, only berries and roots and game and fish. We never thought we would be troubled about these things, and I tell my people, and I believe it, it is not wrong for us to get this food.” In their defense, Indians argued that federal treaties protected their rights to hunt and fish without interference from the states. State courts typically dismissed the concept of reserved rights, and the federal government proved an inconstant ally at best. In the case Ward v. Race Horse in 1896 (163 U.S. 504), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Wyoming’s game laws superseded Shoshone-Bannock treaty rights because of the Constitution’s “equal footing” doctrine. According to this line of argument, Indian treaties negotiated during the territorial period were implicitly abrogated when a territory joined the Union with the all rights and powers of the existing states. In the Pacific Northwest, state courts also used the phrase “in common with the citizens of the Territory” to contend that Indians had only the same rights as non-Indians and were thus equally subject to state laws. Treaty tribes in Washington and Oregon repeatedly challenged this interpretation in the federal courts, and Northwest fishing rights cases reached the Supreme Court seven times during the twentieth century. On each occasion, the Court affirmed the existence of Indian treaty rights but failed to foreclose fully the states’ power to regulate them. State governments, in turn, continued to cite Race Horse and to prosecute Indians for hunting and fishing in violation of state regulations.

Hunting and Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest Fishing rights have been the greatest source of contention in the Pacific Northwest because of their significance in traditional Indian culture and their immense commercial value. Native Americans of the region faced few challenges to their fishing rights before the 1880s. In most places, Indians supplied the small European American market for salmon and continued to use their traditional sites without interference. Following the advent of improved processing technology, however, salmon became a lucrative commodity, and canneries proliferated around Puget Sound and along the lower Columbia

www.abc-clio.com

River. Native labor remained essential in the formative years of the packing industry, in which Indians worked as both fishers and processors, but its rapid growth and capitalization soon marginalized them. Cannery-operated traps and wheels forced Indians away from their accustomed fishing sites and reduced the need for their labor, while the white commercial fleet expanded dramatically. By the early 1900s, many Indians had lost access to traditional reef and riverine fisheries. As few could afford the equipment necessary to pursue fish at sea, most fell into a state of poverty and dependency that persisted into the 1970s. Although tribal leaders appealed to the federal government for help, the BIA moved slowly and hesitantly because it favored a policy of assimilation based on agriculture. Fishing, hunting, and gathering represented relics of “savagery” that the government wished to stamp out and replace with a “civilized” lifestyle. Therefore, despite the promises made in the treaties, federal officials allowed many of the region’s prime fisheries to pass into non-Indian hands. The first significant victories for Indian treaty rights came along the Columbia River, where conflict erupted when American settlers and packing companies began claiming aboriginal fisheries and impeding Indian access to the river. In 1884, a white homesteader named Frank Taylor ran a barbed-wire fence across the main path to the Tumwater fishery near The Dalles, Oregon, arguing that the barrier was necessary to stop Indians from camping and pasturing horses on his land. The Justice Department responded with a lawsuit on behalf of the Yakama Nation, U.S. v. Frank Taylor (3 Washington Territory 88), which reached the Supreme Court of Washington Territory in January 1887. While recognizing the defendant’s title to the land, the court held that “the Treaty privilege of the Indians to take fish was an easement upon it at the time the government conveyed the title and that such title did not extinguish the easement.” In other words, treaty Indians had the right to cross private property when passing to and from their traditional fishing sites. This opinion reversed the initial ruling of the district court and remanded the case for a new trial, which upheld the treaty and produced an injunction against Taylor in October 1887. Other fishwheel owners ignored the ruling, however, forcing the federal government to bring a second lawsuit in 1897 against Audubon and Linnaeus Winans. U.S. v. Winans (198 U.S. 371) became a major landmark in the history of federal Indian law. The

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

Winans brothers, like Taylor, strung a fence across the trail to the aboriginal Tumwater fishery on the Columbia River. They, too, insisted it was essential to protect their crops and pasture from Indian ponies, yet the brothers lost no time in building a fishwheel to harvest salmon. Hoping to overturn the Taylor precedent, their attorneys raised several new arguments to bolster the Winans’s property rights claim. In addition to citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ward v. Race Horse, the defense contended that the Winans brothers’ use of a state-licensed wheel gave them a right superior to that of Native dipnetters, “since wheel fishing is one of the civilized man’s methods, as legitimate as the substitution of the modern combine harvester for the ancient sickle and flail.” Even when erected at traditional grounds, the defense team alleged, fishwheels supposedly did not deprive Indians of their common right, because it “[applied] to no certain and defined places.” The federal district court agreed with the defense and ruled in favor of the Winans brothers, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in the spring of 1905. In an eight-toone opinion delivered by Joseph McKenna, the justices upheld Yakama rights and established two vital principles governing treaty interpretation. The first stated that treaties must be construed as the Indians understood them at the time and “as justice and reason demand” because the United States had exerted superior power over the “unlettered” tribal representatives. The second, known as the reserved rights doctrine, held that treaties were “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those not granted.” Putting these principles into action, the Supreme Court declared that members of the Yakama Nation had retained their existing rights to cross the land, to fish at usual and accustomed places, and to erect temporary houses for curing their catches. Neither private property nor superior technology gave the Winans family an exclusive claim to the fishery, and they could not restrict the Indians in their use of it. Before closing, however, the Court added a bit of dictum that kept open the door to controversy. At the same time that it affirmed the Indians’ right to fish “at all usual and accustomed places,” the ruling did not “restrain the state unreasonably, if at all, in the regulation of that right.” The battle over regulation intensified during the next thirty years as Indians ran afoul of proliferating fish and game laws. In 1915, Washington State

www.abc-clio.com

151

implemented its first fisheries code forbidding certain traditional techniques such as spearing and snaring. The following year, the state’s supreme court ruled against two Indians convicted of fishing with illegal gear and without state licenses. In both cases, State v. Towessnute (89 Wash. 478) and State v. Alexis (89 Wash. 492), the justices held that the defendant’s treaty right to fish “in common” merely gave him the same privileges as non-Indian citizens. State v. Wallahee (143 Wash. 117) applied the same logic to Indian hunting on “open and unclaimed lands” outside reservation boundaries. Although the Office of Indian Affairs urged appeals of Alexis and Towessnute, the federal government declined to challenge state authority on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court had recently reaffirmed state regulatory powers in Kennedy v. Becker (241 U.S. 556), a case involving Seneca fishing rights in New York, and the prospects for reversal seemed dim. During the 1930s, however, a general shift toward self-determination in Indian affairs created a more favorable climate for tribal claims and assertions of sovereignty. The Columbia River treaty tribes pushed for another test case, and in 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court handed them a qualified victory in Tulee v. Washington (315 U.S. 681), which exempted Indians from state license requirements. States could still regulate tribal hunting and fishing for conservation purposes but not by imposing license fees that effectively “[acted] upon the Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their ancestors intended to reserve.” Meanwhile, disagreements within and between the tribes mounted even as they struggled to fend off the common threat of state regulation. With salmon runs sagging and other fisheries disappearing beneath dam reservoirs, many mid-Columbia Indians migrated to the remaining sites between The Dalles and Celilo Falls. The Celilo Fish Committee (CFC), created in 1936 to settle the resulting disputes, provided a forum for competing visions of the fishery. Local residents and people with ancestral fishing stations viewed treaty rights as a legal umbrella beneath which traditional rules still applied. By contrast, newcomers and advocates of tribal control embraced the framework established in the treaties and reinforced through litigation. As Andrew Barnhart explained in 1942, I was appointed a fish committeeman from my Umatilla Reservation to protect my tribal rights. I can remember the old people that fished here at Celilo—Wyam Indians. But the white man

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

152

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

has come here and ruled your location as a tribal relation . . . this Committee will not determine one individual ownership to one location. But we must rule equal right. The completion of The Dalles Dam in 1957 ended the fishery at Celilo but not the controversy. By 1961, when Whitefoot v. United States (293 F.2d 658) expressly defined treaty rights as tribal property, the Warm Springs and Yakama tribes had joined the Quinault and Tulalip of the Washington coast in passing their own fishing ordinances. Traditionalists still objected to the presumption of tribal authority, but their protests were largely drowned out by the climactic confrontation between the tribes and the states. The battle over Northwest Indian fishing rights peaked in the 1960s and 1970s. Salmon runs had reached record lows after a century of overfishing, habitat destruction, industrial pollution, and dam building. White commercial and sports fishermen generally found it easier to blame each other and the Indians—who took only 5 percent of the catch in 1970—and the regional media often echoed popular claims that tribal fishing endangered the resource. Indian court victories further stoked white resentment of the “special rights” bestowed by the treaties. Building on the precedent set in Tulee and Makah v. Schoettler (192 F. 2d 224), the decision in Maison v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (312 F. 2d 169) in 1963 established more stringent criteria for state regulation of Indian fishing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling against the Oregon Game Commission, held that states must prove both the necessity and the indispensability of any conservation regulations imposed on tribal fishing; in other words, Indian treaty rights could be curtailed only if restricting other users had failed to protect the resource. As that case made its way through the court system, however, Washington State cracked down on Nisqually and Puyallup fishers at the southern end of Puget Sound. Indian activists responded with a new tactic, the “fish-in,” which triggered violent reactions and moved the fishing rights controversy into the national spotlight. Fish-ins posed a direct challenge to state authority. Modeled after the contemporaneous sit-ins of the African American civil rights movement, they entailed deliberately breaking the law in order to provoke a response from state authorities, trigger test cases, and publicize the issue of treaty rights. Puyallup fishers Robert Satiacum and James Young

www.abc-clio.com

pioneered the strategy in 1954, when they violated a ban on set nets after notifying state agencies of their intention to do so. By the mid-1960s, fish-ins had spread to Frank’s Landing on the Nisqually River and Cook’s Landing on the Columbia, which remained focal points of protest for the next ten years. Activists such as Billy Frank, Jr. (Nisqually), and David Sohappy, Sr., risked arrest numerous times and eventually came to personify the struggle for the non-Indian public. Some tribal members considered fish-ins counterproductive and called the protestors renegades, but they drew increasing support from sympathetic Indians and non-Indians around the country. The National Indian Youth Council sent Hank Adams and Mel Thom to help organize demonstrations, the Native American Rights Fund offered legal assistance, and Janet McCloud (Tulalip) mobilized the Survival of American Indians Association for a major march on the Washington State capitol. Non-Indian allies included the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker social justice organization; the American Civil Liberties Union, which defended Muckleshoot fishermen in court; and celebrities such as comedian Dick Gregory and actor Marlon Brando, who joined a fish-in in 1964 on the Puyallup River. Brando’s arrest, in particular, made the fish-ins national news and encouraged further media coverage. As protests became more frequent and received more attention, state reactions and local anti-Indian sentiment grew increasingly violent. Some white fishermen vented their anger by cutting nets, stealing fish, setting boats adrift, and even threatening Indians with physical harm. Several Indian fishers complained of being shot at, and in 1971 Hank Adams received a bullet wound from two white men who allegedly said “You . . . Indians think you own everything.” State police and game wardens also clashed with tribal fishers during raids on offreservation fishing sites. Reporters and television crews captured dramatic images of Indians being clubbed, tear-gassed, and dragged across the ground. State patrol boats shadowed Indian fishing canoes and sometimes spilled their occupants into the water to stop them from setting nets. Just as scenes of police brutality in Birmingham, Alabama, galvanized public support for the civil rights movement, media coverage of the fish-ins raised a national outcry and placed mounting pressure on the federal government. In 1966, the Justice Department signaled a shift in policy by declaring that it would accept tribal requests to defend Indians

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

arrested for fishing off reservation under tribal regulations. Federal intervention on behalf of the treaty tribes began with Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, which came to be known as the Puyallup Trilogy because it reached the U.S. Supreme Court on three separate occasions. The case began in 1966, when Washington sued to prevent Nisqually and Puyallup tribe members from fishing contrary to state laws. Federal attorneys filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the tribes, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard their appeal in 1968. Puyallup I (391 U.S. 392) upheld tribal rights to catch both salmon and steelhead, a migratory trout species that the state had classified as a game fish, but it also affirmed the state’s power to regulate offreservation fishing so long as its conservation measures met “appropriate standards” and did not discriminate against Indians. The following year, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Belloni applied these criteria to the Columbia River in the combined cases of Sohappy v. Smith (302 F. Supp. 899) and U.S. v. Oregon. Going a step further, he also decreed that the treaty tribes must be allowed a meaningful role in the regulatory process and guaranteed “a fair and equitable share” of the catch. While Oregon reluctantly complied with that ruling, Washington continued its vigorous enforcement efforts against the tribes of Puget Sound. In 1970, after a heavily armed force of state wardens and local police attacked a large Puyallup fish camp, the federal government initiated U.S. v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312) to clarify the rights of fourteen treaty tribes (later increased to twenty) that chose to participate in the litigation. U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt conducted a thorough review of the evidence and arguments with the goal of settling the controversy once and for all. His decision in the first phase of the trial, issued in 1974, shocked state officials and outraged many non-Indians despite the existence of sound legal precedents. Taking into account contemporary dictionary definitions and the probable Indian understanding of the treaties, Boldt interpreted the pivotal phrase “in common with the citizens of the Territory” to mean “sharing equally.” Thus, the tribes had a right to 50 percent of the annual salmon and steelhead harvest (excluding fish caught on the reservations and for ceremonial or subsistence purposes) as well as the right to participate in management of the resource. The state could regulate offreservation fishing only if its measures met appropriate standards, did not discriminate against

www.abc-clio.com

153

Indians, and served both “reasonable and necessary” conservation purposes. If the runs could be efficiently preserved by other means, including the restriction of nontreaty fishing “to the full extent,” then the Indian fishery could not be regulated at all. Judge Boldt, anticipating resistance to his ruling, followed Belloni’s lead in opting to exercise continuing jurisdiction over the case and to issue his own interim plan for management of the fisheries. As expected, U.S. v. Washington, the so-called Boldt Decision, faced massive opposition from Washington State and its large population of commercial and sports fishermen. Many whites signaled their disapproval with a wave of political protests and illegal fishing in violation of court-ordered closures. Some individuals made threats of violence against Indians and tried to interfere with tribal fishing, which led to several tense confrontations on the water, while commercial and sports fishing organizations lobbied for legislation and launched test cases to reverse Boldt. Two such lawsuits, Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos (565 P.2d 1151) and Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association v. Tollefson (571 P.2d 1373), received favorable hearings from the Washington State Supreme Court in 1977. Although the defendant in each case was the state director of fisheries, Washington actually encouraged non-Indian defiance by working aggressively to obstruct and overturn the Boldt Decision. State agencies refused to issue regulations guaranteeing the tribal allocation, the state attorney general pressed for a high court hearing, state courts dismissed citations against white “outlaw” fishers, and the state’s congressional delegation introduced several bills to abrogate all treaty rights. Congress rejected those measures, as it had done with earlier state proposals to buy out tribal fishing rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court did agree to review both the Washington and Puyallup cases, against a backdrop of rising racial animosity. To the chagrin of Washington State attorney general Slade Gorton, a lifelong opponent of tribal sovereignty, the Court again upheld Indian treaty rights, with only minor qualifications. In 1973, Puyallup II (414 U.S. 44) had struck down a state ban on tribal net fishing for steelhead because it discriminated against Indians. Four years later, amid the furor over the Boldt Decision, Puyallup III (433 U.S. 165) affirmed the allocation of 45 percent of wild steelhead runs to the tribes. State officials hoped that the Supreme Court would throw out Judge Boldt’s 50-50 division, but its decision of 1979 in Washington

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

154

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association (433 U.S. 658) merely modified his formula. Whereas Boldt had excluded the ceremonial, subsistence, and on-reservation catch from the Indians’ share, the Court held that those fish should be counted against the tribal allocation. Furthermore, the majority opinion fixed 50 percent as a maximum share, intended to secure “so much as, but not more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood—that is to say, a moderate living.” Although the Court failed to define “a moderate living,” it suggested that the tribes’ allocation could be reduced due to dwindling membership or economic development that reduced their reliance on fish. For the time being, however, the state had to comply with the district court’s order and apportion fish on an equal basis. To do otherwise would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which describes treaties as “the supreme law of the land” and therefore binding on state governments. As Washington moved slowly to align its policies with Boldt’s initial ruling, Phase II of the trial tackled two outstanding issues: Did the Indian allocation include hatchery fish, and did the treaties imply a right to environmental protection of fish runs and fish habitat? Judge William Orrick, who replaced Boldt upon the latter’s retirement in 1979, answered both questions positively. The tribes needed hatchery fish to replace the wild runs destroyed or depleted by environmental degradation, he argued, and the state would have no incentive to rehabilitate salmon habitat or to prevent further destruction if Indians could catch only wild fish. In a concession to non-Indian economic concerns, however, Orrick ruled that the state had only to refrain from degrading the resource to an extent that would deprive Indians of their “moderate living needs.” This ambiguous interpretation limited the tribes’ ability to enjoin activities that harm fish runs and habitat, and it also failed to define what constitutes a moderate living. They immediately appealed, arguing for the restoration of salmon populations to pre-treaty levels or at least for a higher standard of “no significant deterioration.” Meanwhile, the states and various industrial interests tried equally hard to overturn Orrick’s ruling, which they deemed a threat to hydroelectric power generation and economic growth. The decision stood, though it has been reviewed several times to clarify its meaning, and “Boldt II” remains one of the most controversial and potentially far-reaching aspects of U.S. v. Washington.

www.abc-clio.com

Judge Boldt’s hope of ending the controversy dimmed further in the 1980s and 1990s due to interand intratribal disputes over harvest allocation and the ownership of usual and accustomed fishing sites. Although they have common adversaries and a mutual commitment to preserve the salmon, the tribes also compete for fish and have not shared their portions equally. By the mid-1980s, the Lummi had developed a large ocean fleet capable of catching close to half the entire allocation for the twenty-four treaty tribes in western Washington. Tribes located on southern Puget Sound, with less valuable “terminal” fisheries and little capital with which to “gear up,” fear that the Lummi and other northern tribes will intercept and deplete the runs before others have a chance to fish. The Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, and Squaxin Island tribes have asked the courts to ensure more equitable shares, while the Skokomish and Klallam tribes have challenged Lummi claims to various fishing areas around Puget Sound. Competition for an already-scarce resource has also led some treaty tribes, such as the Quinault and Tulalip, to oppose the efforts of nontreaty groups seeking federal recognition. Within tribes, tensions have developed over the practice of “double-dipping” (fishing with state licenses on days closed to Indians), challenges to tribal regulation, and control of specific fishing sites. The tribes have worked to develop management strategies more appropriate to their cultures and conceptions of the resource, but the continued decline of salmon populations has made it difficult to avoid both internal and external conflicts. Since the 1970s, the federal government has generally followed its established pattern of alternately helping and hindering Northwest tribes in the exercise of their rights and the protection of endangered resources. In 1982, federal agents arrested activist David Sohappy and eighteen other Yakama fishers in an anti-poaching sting operation the press later dubbed “Salmonscam.” Sohappy and his son ultimately spent five years in prison, despite the fact that government allegations proved vastly overblown, and non-Indians received only fines for the same crime. The Bureau of Indian Affairs then tried to evict the Sohappys and other Indian families from the in-lieu fishing sites where they lived, arguing that the sites were tribal property and not intended for permanent occupancy. Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers dragged its heels in completing additional in-lieu sites promised fifty years earlier when Bonneville Dam inundated traditional

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

fishing locations in the Columbia River gorge. The corps has also joined the Bonneville Power Administration in opposing tribal efforts to make the dams and the river more hospitable for salmon. The tribes, in turn, have sued several times to force the Commerce Department to reduce the ocean seasons set by the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (PFMC). Although the courts have resisted tribal demands, they have required the PFMC and other agencies to work with the tribes in creating mutually acceptable management plans. The shift toward cooperative management is one of several important legacies of the long struggle over Northwest Indian treaty rights. Most of the tribes concerned in U.S. v. Oregon and U.S. v. Washington currently operate their own fish hatcheries and employ their own harvest managers, enforcement officers, biologists, and technicians. They also work collectively through the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, founded in 1974 to coordinate the regional treaty councils in western Washington, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. In addition to providing technical assistance to the tribes and information to the nonIndian public, these organizations consult and negotiate with a bewildering array of state, federal, and international bodies. The tribes have thus become key players in fisheries management and environmental politics, fueling a resurgence of tribal sovereignty to match the economic and cultural revitalization many reservations experienced following the Boldt Decision. The Makah, whose treaty of 1854 also reserved the right to hunt whales, reported a similar upsurge in tribal pride when they resumed the practice after an eighty-year hiatus. Makah whalers had voluntarily stopped hunting in the 1920s, when gray whales became endangered due to commercial exploitation, but in 2001 the tribe successfully petitioned the federal government and the International Whaling Commission for permission to take five whales per year. The resulting protests and court challenges show that treaty rights and tribal traditions, though now on firmer legal footing, remain poorly understood by much of the non-Indian public.

Hunting and Fishing Rights in the Upper Midwest The controversy over Indian treaty rights in the Upper Midwest has followed a trajectory similar to the struggle in the Pacific Northwest. Starting in the

www.abc-clio.com

155

seventeenth century, the extension of the European fur trade into the Great Lakes region disrupted the aboriginal economy of the Ottawa and Ojibwe (Chippewa/Anishinaabe), gradually drawing them into a market system over which they had little control. Initially, many Indians adapted to this new economic network by integrating wage labor into their subsistence cycle, but the commodification of natural resources eventually undermined Native autonomy and self-sufficiency. By 1900, market hunting and logging had decimated the animal populations and pine forests of northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Indians maintained a toehold in the fishing industry as wage laborers and continued their seasonal migrations as best they could. As the white fishing industry developed, however, the same capital-intensive operations that forced the Indians off the lakes systematically depleted one native species after another. Industrial pollution and lamprey infestation (caused by the St. Lawrence Seaway) aggravated the effects of overfishing, leading to the complete collapse of the Great Lakes commercial fishery in the 1950s. The surrounding states restocked the waters with popular game fish such as trout and coho salmon, but this lucrative sports fishery soon ran headlong into the rising Native American consciousness of the postwar decades. The Indian peoples of the Great Lakes, like those of the Pacific Northwest, had long borne the brunt of state conservation efforts in spite of their treaty-reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded lands. Wisconsin first proscribed gillnetting in the early 1850s, and in 1868 the state began setting seasons for deer, game birds, and fur-bearing animals. Although these regulations were not strictly enforced until the 1880s, they effectively reduced the land area within which Indians could pursue their traditional economy without breaking the law. The expansion of state hatchery programs and the Northwoods tourist industry in the early twentieth century encouraged fish and game officials to tighten their grip on tribal hunting and fishing. Wisconsin even sought to impose its regulations on certain reservation lands in the 1930s, by which time “violating” had become a way of life and a source of pride for many Indians. Midwestern state courts proved just as unsympathetic to treaty rights as had those in the Northwest. In 1930, in the case People v. Chosa, for instance, several members of Michigan’s Keweenaw Bay band of Chippewa stood trial for fishing contrary to state regulations. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that they no longer had

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

156

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

any off-reservation treaty rights because “when one becomes a citizen of the United States [as Indians had in 1924], he casts off both the rights and obligations of his former nationality and takes on those which pertain to citizens of the country.” Native hunters and fishers in Michigan moved from covert evasion to outright defiance of state laws during the 1960s. In 1965, stirred by news of the Northwest fish-ins, William Jondreau of the L’Anse band of Chippewa tested his rights under their 1854 treaty by informing state officials of his intention to net lake trout out of season. Six years later, State of Michigan v. William Jondreau (384 Mich. 539) reached the state supreme court, which overruled one of its own opinions (Chosa) and upheld the treaty. The implications of Jondreau’s victory remained uncertain because few of Michigan’s Indians were party to the agreement of 1854, but the ruling helped inspire further litigation. In the case People v. LeBlanc of 1976 (399 Mich. 31), brought by Bay Mills band member Albert LeBlanc, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed Chippewa and Ottawa fishing rights under the treaty of 1836. Citing the precedent set in Puyallup I, the court held that the state’s ban on gillnetting could only be applied to Indians if the state first showed that it was necessary for conservation and did not discriminate against them. Skeptical of the outcome in the state courts, the Bay Mills Community and the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa also took action in federal court. The U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior intervened on their behalf, and their case reached the U.S. District Court in 1979. U.S. v. Michigan (471 F. Supp. 192) ultimately brought mixed results for the Indians. In the opinion, Judge Noel Fox affirmed Chippewa and Ottawa treaty rights to fish the Great Lakes with modern technology and without regard to state law. “The right is not a static right today any more than it was during treaty times,” he wrote, and therefore it was not limited as to the species and origin of fish or the purpose, time, or manner of taking, as long as the Indians obeyed tribal and federal regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), in turn, continued to enforce its regulations against Indian fishers and failed to protect them against white vigilantes affiliated with Stop Gill Netting and other anti-treaty groups that sprang up in the wake of the ruling. Spurred by lurid MDNR and press portrayals of Indian fishing as a threat to conservation and tourism, sportsmen

www.abc-clio.com

harassed tribal fishers and destroyed their gear as state wardens and police looked on. State officials made political hay of the issue and pushed for congressional abrogation of treaty rights. Michigan’s intransigence prevented a resolution to the dispute until 1985, when a new judge appointed Francis McGovern to negotiate a settlement out of court. The subsequent Sault Ste. Marie Agreement split the fishery into state and tribal zones and compensated the tribes for their diminished rights, but it offered little to the small-boat Indian fishers who found themselves confined to less productive northern waters. Similar events transpired in Wisconsin, where Fred and Mike Tribble of the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) band of Chippewa initiated a test case in 1974. Following their arrest for spearfishing out of season and off the reservation, the tribe filed a federal suit against Lester Voigt, head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). U.S. District Court Judge James Doyle initially determined that the Indians could not hunt, fish, and gather off the reservation free of state regulation. He contended that, whereas the treaties of 1837 and 1842 had expressly reserved usufructuary rights, the treaty of 1854 had not done so, thereby implicitly suspending them. In 1983, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Doyle’s decision in La Courte Oreilles v. Voigt (700 F. 2d 341) and remanded it to the district court for clarification. Commonly known as LCO I or the Voigt Decision, the appeals court ruling held that explicit language would have been necessary to suspend treaty-reserved rights, given their legal standing and the Indians’ interpretation of the treaty of 1854. The state could only regulate those rights in the interests of conservation, public health, or safety and then only if the regulations were reasonable and necessary to preserve a particular species, were the least restrictive possible, and did not discriminate against Indians. Judge Doyle’s adjudication of the case continued until 1991, producing eight subsequent rulings (LCO II-IX) to define the exact scope of Chippewa rights, while the controversy raged outside the courtroom. The furor over the Voigt Decision in northern Wisconsin rivaled the earlier backlash against the Boldt Decision. White sportsmen bitterly denounced the court’s alleged extension of “unlimited rights” to the Indians under “old treaties,” echoing the WDNR’s claim that tribal hunting and fishing would destroy the resources. State-sponsored studies have shown that Indian spearfishers and gillnetters normally take less than 3 percent of the annual walleye

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

and musky harvests on northern lakes, while the tribal deer harvest remains lower than the yearly roadkill rate. Nevertheless, anti-Indian sentiment flared under the influence of economic recession and ill-informed media coverage. Blaming Indians for the decline of the tourist industry, anti-treaty groups such as Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources (PARR) and Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin (STA-W) spouted racist rhetoric and encouraged their members to disrupt the spearfishing season. Signs and bumper stickers proliferated, proclaiming, “Save a Walleye, Spear an Indian,” and angry crowds gathered at boat landings to hurl rocks and racial slurs at Chippewa fishers. Out on the water, non-Indian boats tried to block lake access, harassed spearfishers with spotlights, and attempted to swamp their vessels. Some Indians even reported receiving death threats or hearing gunshots, yet local police and local courts did little to curtail the protests on the grounds that they were protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, despite Governor Anthony Earl’s call for cooperation between state agencies and tribal governments, many bureaucrats and politicians worked hard to obstruct and overturn the Voigt Decision. Early interim agreements, intended to allow for the meaningful exercise of Chippewa rights while litigation continued, proved so restrictive that some tribal leaders considered them a bad joke. The WDNR also imposed excessively low bag limits on non-Indian anglers, sparking increased hostility, which in turn compelled Chippewa fishers to voluntarily reduce their catches. Republican congressman Frank Sensenbrenner introduced an unsuccessful treaty abrogation bill in 1987, while Wisconsin’s entire congressional delegation signed a letter threatening tribal governments with drastic budget cuts if they refused to curb off-reservation hunting and fishing. Two years later, a tribal referendum on the Lac du Flambeau reservation rejected a $42 million buyout of the band’s rights, proposed by the state attorney general. Other reservations proved more amenable to state leasing proposals, however, and in 1991 the Chippewa collectively agreed not to appeal their loss in LCO VIII (timber rights) or seek back damages if the state would respect the other rulings. The battle in the courts and on the lakes exposed significant cultural and strategic differences within and among the nine Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin. Following their victorious appeal of LCO I, they formed the Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force to reach a

www.abc-clio.com

157

consensus on the meaning of the decision. Tribal leaders agreed to define treaty rights as tribal and not individual property, but they quibbled over which rights to prioritize and how much to demand from the state. The Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac du Flambeau (LdF) bands took the most aggressive stance. LCO tribal members generally preferred hunting over fishing, though, whereas the Mole Lake band expressed more interest in protecting its rights to harvest wild rice. The St. Croix tribal council initially wanted nothing more than free state fishing licenses, leading LdF spearer Tom Maulson to deride them as the “Zebco tribe” (Zebco being a popular brand of fishing tackle). Maulson’s Wa-SwaGon Treaty Association organized the fight against the state’s buyout proposal, which some tribal members considered reasonable because only a minority of Chippewa still exercised their treaty rights. WaSwa-Gon supporters countered this argument by encouraging the revival of cultural traditions and transforming the fishing spear and the torch (historically used to “shine” walleye at night) into key symbols of Chippewa identity. They also advocated a strategy of nonviolence on the lakes and welcomed the presence of non-Indian “Witness in Wisconsin” observers at the landings. Other spearfishers, by contrast, counseled militant self-defense and regarded the witnesses as an unnecessary provocation to local whites. Minnesota Chippewa have likewise divided at times over the best approach to resolving the treaty rights controversy. In 1988, the Boise Forte, Grand Portage, and Fond du Lac bands negotiated an agreement with the state to settle a lawsuit Grand Portage had brought to affirm its rights under the treaties of 1837 and 1854. By signing the agreement, the bands consented to stop or limit the exercise of certain off-reservation rights in return for an annual payment from the state and cooperative enforcement of fish and wildlife codes. Fond du Lac subsequently withdrew from the agreement, however, choosing to return to court for an adjudication of its rights. The Mille Lacs band also sued the state in 1990, seeking a declaratory judgment that they retained usufructuary rights under the treaty of 1837 and an injunction against state interference with those rights. Nine years later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the treaty in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (526 U.S. 172) by a narrow five-to-four vote. Six bands of Wisconsin Chippewa intervened in the suit, demonstrating the extent to which the tribes share common interests despite their various differences.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

158

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

They cooperate through the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) to coordinate conservation and enforcement efforts, disseminate information to the public, gather scientific data, and confront environmental threats such as mercury contamination. Thus, in the Upper Midwest as in the Pacific Northwest, the struggle for treaty rights has stimulated a revitalization of tribal governance and intertribal cooperation as well as renewed interest and pride in Native traditions. Currently, the criteria for state regulation of Indian hunting and fishing rights depend on the particular treaty or statute and the various federal, state, and tribal interests involved. Generally speaking, tribes may regulate on-reservation hunting and fishing free from state interference. In some cases, however, tribal governments lack the authority to prevent non-Indians from hunting or fishing on reservation lands that are not owned by individual Indians or by the tribe itself. Furthermore some federal conservation laws (e.g., the Eagle Protection Act) preempt both on- and off-reservation treaty rights. State governments may regulate off-reservation hunting and fishing only when they present a sufficient conservation or safety risk. To justify such regulation, the state must demonstrate that a significant hazard exists, that the state cannot meet its objectives by regulating non-Indians alone, and that the regulation is the least restrictive alternative available. Cooperative management has become the new paradigm in resource conservation, and negotiation has gradually replaced litigation as the preferred means of dispute resolution between states and tribes. Tribal governments, in particular, have grown more cautious about going to court, as states’ rights and property rights ideologies have resurged within the federal judiciary and the national legislature. Still, having fought so hard to protect their hunting and fishing rights, Indians must continue to fight to ensure that the resources do not disappear. After all, as Judge William Orrick noted in reference to the Boldt Decision, “fifty percent of nothing is nothing.”

Gathering Rights Treaty-reserved gathering rights have generally caused less conflict than tribal hunting and fishing because many food and medicinal plants harvested by Native Americans possess little appeal or commercial value for non-Indians. In cases where competition does exist, or where ecological changes have caused scarcity, gathering rights have become the

www.abc-clio.com

subject of litigation and legislation. Wild rice (manoomin), a staple of the Ojibwe diet since the seventeenth century, offers a prime example of this pattern. All the Chippewa treaties in the Great Lakes region either explicitly or implicitly reserved the right to gather wild rice on ceded lands. Despite federal efforts to replace rice harvesting with “civilized” agriculture, most Chippewa continued to gather manoomin well into the twentieth century, typically taking enough to supply both their own needs and the small non-Indian market. During the 1960s, however, the introduction of combine harvesters and paddy ricing enabled whites to gain control of the expanding industry. Although many Chippewa had readily adopted earlier technological advances, they could not afford the expensive new machines and protested their destructive impact on natural rice beds. Minnesota eventually banned mechanical harvesters and passed conservation laws to protect the resource, but not before overproduction had ruined many rice lakes and glutted the market. Falling prices forced more Indians out of the market, while industrial pollution and resort development contaminated or closed off access to many of the remaining rice beds. By the 1970s, few Chippewa harvested manoomin commercially, though many still gather it for subsistence and ceremonial purposes today. As with hunting and fishing rights, state regulation of ricing presented a problem for tribes without sizable rice lakes on their reservations. Consequently, several bands have sued to secure their rights to gather off reservation, starting in 1939 with U.S. v. 4,450.72 Acres of Land (72 F. Supp. 167). That case, brought by the federal government on behalf of the Minnesota Chippewa, prompted Congress to establish the Wild Rice Lake Reserve for their exclusive use. Under state law, however, Indian harvesters had to pay license fees and accept oversight by the Department of Game and Fish (DGF) even when ricing on the reserve. Many Chippewa simply ignored the license requirement, and DGF harassment became a regular feature of harvest time. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the state’s regulatory role in State v. Keezer (292 N.W.2d 714), a decision in 1980 stemming from the arrest of two Chippewa ricers, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Mille Lacs forced the state back to the table. Wisconsin has also entered into negotiations since 1987, when LCO III (653 F. Supp. 1420) affirmed Ojibwe rights to harvest wild plants on all public lands within the bands’ ceded territories. Although the state retains some regulatory power

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

over wild rice, numerous other species fall under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached between the U.S. Forest Service and ten GLIFWC tribes. A model of cooperative management, this MOU provides for tribal enforcement of tribally approved codes, including a requirement that harvesters obtain annual off-reservation permits. In the Pacific Northwest, treaty tribes reserved “the privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.” Their subsequent defense of these “privileges” revealed that they applied the phrase “usual and accustomed places” to all subsistence activities—not just fishing—and they logically tried to use rights won in fishing litigation to support their claims to off-reservation gathering sites. At a hearing in 1928 in Washington, D.C., for example, Noah James Saluskin of the Yakama Nation testified that “my forefathers reserved the right to fish and hunt, gather roots outside the reservation on ceded lands and I think I have a right to gather roots and berries.” In 1932, when an army of unemployed non-Indians invaded tribal huckleberry fields in the Cascade mountains, local Forest Service officials made an effort to accommodate Yakama claims by setting aside some three thousand acres for exclusive Indian use. This “handshake agreement” has survived into the present, but it took a federal court decision in 1984 (State of Washington v. Miller, 689 P.2d 81) to establish that there is “no operative distinction” between treaty-reserved “rights” and “privileges.” Fifteen tribes party to U.S. v. Washington also returned to court in 1989 to clarify their rights to harvest shellfish on privately owned tidelands. Five years later, U.S. District Court judge Edward Rafeedie held that the treaties’ “in common” language meant that the tribes had reserved gathering rights to half of all shellfish from their usual and accustomed places, except those specifically set aside for non-Indian shellfish cultivation purposes. As with hunting and fishing rights, however, securing access to shellfish beds and berry fields does not guarantee that there will be adequate and uncontaminated resources to harvest. Pollution, habitat destruction, and commercial exploitation still threaten to render treaty rights a set of empty promises. The struggle to preserve these hard-won rights will likely continue in the future as ongoing economic competition and environmental degradation take their toll on indigenous plant, fish, and animal populations. Although relatively few Native Ameri-

www.abc-clio.com

159

cans in the United States (excluding Alaska) now depend on hunting, fishing, and gathering for subsistence, those activities have become powerful symbols of Indian identity. To those who still exercise them, treaty rights are integral to cultural and religious practices that define what it means to be a tribe member. Accordingly, many elders lament the fact that younger people often express little interest in traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices. “Today it’s hard to be an Indian person, and it’s easy to be white,” observed Edward James (Umatilla) during the sesquicentennial commemoration of his tribe’s treaty of 1855. “If we don’t hunt, fish, dig roots and pick berries then what are we? We’re certainly not being Natitayt [Indian people].” To protect the old ways, however, Native Americans have also developed the legal, political, and scientific expertise necessary to secure a place at the negotiating table. Contemporary tribal leaders understand that both traditional and modern forms of knowledge must be passed on to future generations and that the battle to uphold their rights has not ended either in the court of law or in the court of public opinion. “There are citizens who believe that the treaties are not living documents, that they are out of date, obsolete and no longer useful,” reminded Roberta Conner, director of the Tamastslikt Cultural Institute on the Umatilla Reservation. She warned, “Indeed, treaties were the means through which all others obtained legal title to Indian lands, and it would behoove non-Indians to protect and uphold the treaties today.” Andrew H. Fisher References and Further Reading Bentley, Shannon. 1992. “Indians’ Right to Fish: The Background, Impact, and Legacy of United States v. Washington.” American Indian Law Review 17(1): 1–35. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1989. To Fish in Common: The Ethnohistory of Lummi Indian Salmon Fishing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Bruun, Rita. 1982. “The Boldt Decision: Legal Victory, Political Defeat.” Law and Policy Quarterly 4: 271–298. Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Danielsen, Karen C., and Jonathan H. Gilbert. 2002. “Ojibwe Off-Reservation Harvest of Wild Plants.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J. McLain, and James Weigand, 282–292. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

160

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen: Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed. Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Doherty, Robert. 1993. Disputed Waters: Native Americans and the Great Lakes Fishery. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western History 49: 2–17. Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty Rights and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): 178–211. Fixico, Donald L. 1987. “Chippewa Fishing and Hunting Rights and the Voigt Decision.” In An Anthology of Western Great Lakes Indian History, ed. Donald L. Fixico, 481–519. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee American Indian Studies Program. Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.” Environmental Law 10: 413–456. Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Eau Claire: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Ulrich, Roberta. 1999. Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and the Columbia River. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Vennum, Thomas, Jr. 1998. Wild Rice and the Ojibway People. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights: Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20(1): 87–129. Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. New York: W. W. Norton.

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

O O

n January 16, 2003, the Omaha World-Herald carried an obvious truism to those who know the history of law and Native Americans. “Tribes’ Jurisdiction ‘Complicated’” rang the admonition. A tremendous understatement, complications over indigenous jurisdiction stem from a tangle of laws, court decisions, executive actions (deriving from state, federal and tribal governments), and treaties and other agreements that date back more than two centuries. Within the maze that is Indian law, there are countless inconsistencies, reversals, and contradictions. It should not be surprising, then, that confusion persists over the issue of jurisdiction. However, what represents a new development for Native nations—or perhaps a return to older ways, depending on one’s perspective—are greater jurisdictional assertions of sovereignty by tribal governments. In the summer of 2002, the Omaha Tribal Council authorized its tribal police to conduct a safety check of all vehicles in Pender, Nebraska, a predominantly non-Indian town located on the reservation. A week later, Nebraskans woke up to another headline about jurisdiction, but this time a more incendiary one. “Farmers Oppose Tribal Move” spoke to another jurisdictional tumult. Two white farmers, who worked land on the Winnebago Reservation (which is contiguous with the Omaha Reservation) that had been purchased from an Indian family more than eighty years ago, were furious. The Winnebago and Omaha tribes had both decided to take over the enforcement of laws concerning pesticide handling and application. This had previously been handled by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The farmers created a group called We the People to protest their rights. Said the head of Thurston County’s We the People chapter, “The fear is either they’re going to try to regulate us out of business or fine us out of business.” Tribal officials see it rather differently. They argue that, because they are close at hand, the tribe should take over. The tribe can improve the response time to clean up spills, and, by assuming jurisdiction, it can also create some reservation jobs. “Basically, our goals are parallel,” said John Blackhawk, chairman of the Winnebago Indian tribe. “It won’t be the tribe trying to pick on anyone or move anyone off their land. They just don’t like the scenario of being in charge.” Bad local feelings

and lawsuits seem inevitable. Indeed, jurisdiction issues have been a part of life for Native America from time immemorial, and they continue to represent flash points. Over the last 225-plus years, tribal governments have worked to maintain their jurisdictional authority in the face of expanding encroachment by the U.S. federal government. Native authority has witnessed a series of jurisdictional attacks and retreats on the part of federal, state, and local governments. The steady erosion of Native authority during the nineteenth century reached a low watermark at the turn of that century, which was reversed during the 1930s Indian New Deal. A savage attack on indigenous jurisdiction was sustained in the post–World War II years, only to be turned back in the 1970s. That attack has been revitalized since the 1980s, this time by the U.S. Supreme Court instead of Congress. Despite such obstacles in their paths, Native nations continue to strive for sovereignty. And although they have not regained all of their previous jurisdiction, they have made great strides in that direction.

Native America and Original Jurisdiction When one considers that the current boundaries of the United States encompass a land mass comparable in size to Europe’s, it should come as no surprise that, historically, there has been a wide range of indigenous nations and governments. In fact, the plurality and diversity of Native American nations in precontact times far exceeded the plurality and diversity of Europe. For example, whereas Europe came to be dominated by one form of government (monarchy), Native nations produced a multitude of governing bodies, including democratic systems. What all these Native political bodies had in common, whether the theocracies of the Southwest, the decentralized structures of the Great Plains, the multinational League of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), the family-based polities of the Great Basin, the confederacies of the Southeast, or any other, was that they were all independent, sovereign nations. Their sovereignty met the same definitions as that of other nations all around the world: they were independent, self-governing political organizations.

161 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

162

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

However, Europeans who began arriving in the Americas at the end of the fifteenth century often dismissed the legitimacy of indigenous governments on the grounds that Indians were neither Christian nor white. But such opinions reflected the biases, prejudices, racism, and imperial ambitions then prevalent in European thought, not the political realities of the Western Hemisphere. Thus, though Europeans might denigrate indigenous governments in one breath, they were forced to confront the reality of Native sovereignty in the next. Contrary to the disinformative stereotypes they promulgated, Europeans stumbled upon neither disorganized Indian populations living in anarchy nor the Edenic and doomed bliss of a childlike people who had yet to tackle complex politics. They encountered a great many forms of Native government, and interaction between Europeans and Indians represented nationto-nation relations. Almost from the beginning of contact, Europeans employed a variety of techniques designed to minimize or even obliterate Native sovereignty— brute force. Though European/African/Asiatic diseases were responsible for most of the destruction of Native populations, European aggression also played a substantial role in the diminution of sovereignty among many Native nations. The Spanish used merciless military might to take control of the southwestern Pueblos at the end of the sixteenth century. Slaughtering resisters and employing terror to subdue the substantially larger Native populations, the Spanish attempted to wipe out Pueblo governments altogether. In the early 1600s, England, France, Holland, and Sweden all jockeyed for influence along the Atlantic coast, none of them having the wherewithal to immediately impose their will upon Native nations. As the European powers competed with each other, they formed alliances with various Native nations in an effort to bolster their position. Likewise, Indian leaders often saw Europeans as potentially potent allies in their own world of Native political and diplomatic rivalries. After all, just as Europe was a sharply divided continent plagued by wars up to the present day, so, too, was North America a place where indigenous nations competed with each other in commerce and warfare. Thus, if a European nation sought to profit by affiliating with the right Native nation, Native nations likewise sought to profit by affiliating with the right European nation. The legalistic and literate English colonists first began the process of signing titles, deeds, and other

www.abc-clio.com

contracts with American Indians. Representatives of the Crown went a step further and conducted nation-to-nation negotiations with Native nations that resulted in the signing of treaties. On numerous occasions, the English government made formal agreements with various indigenous parties that did everything to form alliances, begin and end wars, outline commercial transactions (including land purchases), and create centralized jurisdictions. Whereas a written document was vital to the European understanding of negotiations, Native nations valued other parameters. For many Indians of the Northeast, wampum was the central artifact. Strings of small polished shells or beads were bound together to form a belt. The arrangement of the multicolored beads formed patterns and even images. Wampum had numerous purposes, but within the context of negotiations it served a function similar to the written treaty. At the conclusion of a successful negotiation, a Native nation would often create a new wampum belt, its images recording the agreements that had been made. At future meetings between the parties, that wampum would be presented and recited as reminders of previous accords. By negotiating, signing treaties, and accepting wampum, the English recognized the sovereignty of indigenous governments, both by their own standards and by those of Native nations. Regardless of English motivations for signing treaties, simply engaging in the process was a tacit acknowledgment of Native sovereignty. When the United States chose to continue that process after achieving its independence, it likewise made that same acknowledgment. And although federal officials often negotiated in bad faith, manipulated proceedings, and subverted Native sovereignty, the results were a double-edged blade. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that treaties are on a par with the Constitution itself, ranking as “the supreme law of the land.” To the extent, then, that the United States would continue to use treaties as the legal knife for slicing into Native lands and sovereignty, that knife would cut both ways. Treaties are agreements between nations. Therefore, no matter how much the United States would attempt to usurp the jurisdiction of Native governments in the years to come, it had to recognize the nationhood of every group with which it had signed a treaty. As time passed and the power of Native governments waned in the face of the expanding American empire, many indigenous nations understandably clung to the treaties they

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

had signed, revering the documents that proclaimed their sovereignty. Although by 1776 a number of indigenous nations had already capitulated beneath the weight of various European invasions, the vast majority of Indian governments were still fully independent sovereignties when the American Revolution broke out. Indeed, many of those west of the Mississippi River and east of modern-day coastal California had had only limited contact, if any, with Europeans by this time. However, the thirteen English colonies that sought to establish their own country in that year generally harbored a rather hostile opinion of Native governments and their citizens. Such hostility was even reflected in their Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. King George III, the rebellious colonists asserted, had done no less than incite “Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.” On one level, the statement was a piece of contemporary political propaganda designed to gain European allies and justify a rebellion that many were then interpreting as treason. After all, it was the English (and other Europeans), not indigneous peoples, who had pioneered the mass murder of civilian populations in North America. On another level, though, the statement reflected a basic flaw in the philosophy of the new American nation: Native governments were not seen as the legitimate expressions of the will of Indian people. Rather, the Revolution’s leaders publicly dismissed out of hand the legitimacy, effectiveness, and even morality of Indian governments. This meant they could mischaracterize Indian political decisions and actions as the “savage” anarchy of people who lived without “rules.” And even though it was obviously and patently untrue, that assertion would come to serve as a powerful rationalization for many misdeeds and acts of bad faith on the part of the United States toward Native nations in the years to come. It would become the fulcrum on which the battle over sovereignty turned. Although it is unlikely that many indigenous people then knew of the libel contained within the Declaration of Independence, that act of broad character assassination was merely symbolic of what was already apparent to most Indians. Many English colonists had an open disrespect for Native sovereignty and a seemingly endless thirst for Indian lands. If the colonists successfully revolted and escaped the strictures of royal government, their aggressions might go unchecked. It is not surprising,

www.abc-clio.com

163

then, that many Native nations chose to side with the British during the war. Particularly in the transAppalachian region and throughout much of the South, one indigenous nation after another took up arms to help the British put down the rebellion. These were not the heathen pawns of the English Crown, as the Declaration of Independence had erroneously claimed. These were calculated expressions of Native sovereignty. And despite the colonial rhetoric about Indian savages, the Revolution’s leadership knew all too well just how politically sophisticated and militarily imposing many Native nations were. Faced with these realities, General George Washington placed a high priority on achieving a state of detente with as many Native nations as possible. He knew his cause depended on it. From the outset of the conflict, American diplomats toured eastern America, soliciting councils and working hard to extract promises of neutrality from suspicious Native governments. In fact, early in the conflict, the Continental Congress made a preliminary invitation to the powerful Lenape (Delaware) Indian nation: if they would fight with the colonists, the Lenape Nation could enter the United States as its own state after the war. The Lenape did not immediately accept the proposition, and it was never again offered. Nonetheless, this episode clearly illustrates the strength, independence, and sovereignty of Native nations. Further, it shows that the imperial conquest of Native nations was by no means a forgone conclusion or an inevitable consequence of American independence. During the Revolutionary War, some Native nations did form open alliances with the American colonists and help them fight the British. In particular, a number of Algonkian nations of New England, whose own political power had diminished significantly during the past sesquicentury, joined with the colonists from the outset. Often, their reward for years of fighting was to return home from the war to find their land squatted on by colonists. Some members of the mighty Haudenosaunee Confederacy also sided with the colonists. Haudenosaunee territory stretched from the Adirondack Mountains in the East to the Great Lakes in the Midwest. Consequently, military and economic concerns as well as historical factors led to political division within the confederacy and even within its various memberships. Generally, the Oneida and Tuscarora (the latter a recent addition to the League) allied with the colonists, and the Onondaga, Mohawk, Cayuga, and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

164

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

Seneca fought for the British; the confederacy’s members at times faced each other on the battlefield. Ironically, the United States generally offered better terms of settlement to Haudenosaunee nations that had fought against it than it did to those that had allied with it.

Early Indian-U.S. Jurisdiction After the American victory, the new U.S. Congress quickly attempted to establish its exclusive domain over economic and diplomatic relations with Indian governments. But given the decentralized nature and relative weakness of the first U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation, Indian nations frequently found themselves negotiating with individual states as well as the national government. In 1789, when the United States began the process of replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, it renewed its effort to certify the federal government’s primacy over the states in relations with Native nations. Individual states would no longer have the power to conduct relations with Native nations unless explicitly granted permission to do so by the federal government. This ideal would usually be upheld by U.S. courts over the succeeding years. However, there would be numerous occasions, down to the present, when the federal government would conduct the states’ bidding or simply allow states to run amok. The Constitution’s specific mentions of Native nations are sparse but telling. Article I, Section 2, in creating the formula for congressional representation from a state’s population, excludes “Indians not taxed.” In other words, Native Americans were officially excluded from congressional representation; their outsider status was confirmed. Article I, Section 8, also known as the commerce clause, gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce “with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” By differentiating between Indian nations and foreign nations (and referring to them as “tribes” instead of nations), the Constitution alluded to the realpolitik stance that the United States was adopting. The United States would never accord Native nations the same dignity and respect it did nonindigenous nations, and by singling out Native nations, even those beyond its borders, it was attempting to invalidate Native sovereignty and submerge it beneath federal control. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court would later cite the commerce clause

www.abc-clio.com

to justify extending federal jurisdiction over Native nations. The practical outcome of this policy was the development of federal trading houses. In 1790, Congress passed the first in a series of laws known as the Intercourse Acts. These bills created a system whereby only federally licensed traders could conduct commercial transactions with American Indians. Business would take place at federal trading houses. And one commercial transaction in particular was completely abolished: the purchasing of Indian lands by any U.S. citizen, corporation, or state. Only the federal government would be allowed to acquire title to Native lands. One of the main goals of the various Intercourse Acts was to eliminate the corruption, theft, and conflict that had often marked business relations between Indians and European Americans, particularly at the far western reaches of the new country. Unregulated trade had featured a bevy of unsavory business practices, most of which disadvantaged Native participants. But in addition to cleaning up the dirtier aspects of international commerce, the Intercourse Acts also impinged upon Native jurisdiction. The very first of these bills declared that, when non-Indians committed crimes against Indians, those cases should be heard in American courts; Native legal systems should have no jurisdiction. Europeans had always sought to have such matters settled through their own legal system, and now the new United States was following that precedent, proclaiming in federal legislation its right to insulate its citizens from Native jurisdictions. Subsequent Intercourse Acts and related bills passed through the mid-nineteenth century mandated that Indians committing crimes off their reservations be tried in federal courts; that Indians committing crimes against non-Indians should have their cases heard in federal court, even if the crime had been committed on Indian land; that nonIndians traveling to Indian lands needed passports; that Native nations were banned from engaging in diplomacy with nations other than the United States; and that individual Indians were prohibited from criticizing the U.S. government. The imperial nature of these edicts is self-evident. As the nineteenth century opened, the assault on Native jurisdiction was well under way. Enforcement of the Intercourse Acts was always problematic. Illegal trade continued to flourish beyond the reaches of federal enforcement, and this struck at a basic jurisdictional issue that would

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

haunt U.S.-Indian relations in the century to come. The simple fact was that the U.S. federal government was rather weak. It often had great difficulty enforcing its own laws on a recalcitrant citizenry. That is, in making jurisdictional claims over its own populace, it frequently took on more than it could realistically enforce. However, it was quite successful in insulating its citizens from Native jurisdictions. Local, state, and federal governments consistently refused to recognize the legitimacy of Native jurisdictions. American citizens were generally quite pleased by this development, as they could usually count on racist judges and juries to clear them of charges or impose minimal fines and sentences for crimes committed against Indians. For Native nations, however, it was a challenge to their sovereignty. The battle over jurisdiction had begun, and the balance of power was swinging to the United States.

The Nineteenth Century During the first one-third of the nineteenth century, the United States implemented a program of ethnic cleansing. Native Americans by the tens of thousands were forcibly removed from their lands east of the Mississippi River. The phrase ethnic cleansing did not yet exist, and the official term for the policy was removal, but these actions were clearly on a par with more recent episodes of violence and forced migration that we now label ethnic cleansing. Native nations in the Upper Midwest lost a series of wars that led to their expulsion. In the Southeast, however, circumstances differed. Five larger nations dominated the regions by the opening of the nineteenth century: the Cherokee, Muscogee Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole. All five nations were potentially formidable military opponents. The difficulty of waging war against them would later crystallize in the First and Second Seminole Wars. Therefore, the federal government developed a different strategy for dispossessing and expelling their populations. On one hand, it stood by as individual state governments illegally usurped Native jurisdictions. Meanwhile, it applied bad-faith economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the five nations, pressuring them to leave while enticing them with promises of free land and independent sovereignty in the West. Despite all the carrots and sticks, the five nations still resisted. They fought removal in a number of ways, including lobbying Congress, negotiating with presidents, and publishing their views. The Cherokee Nation

www.abc-clio.com

165

took matters a step further by going to court. Their resistance marked an important episode in jurisdictional issues between the United States and Native nations. In 1823, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Johnson v. M’Intosh. Congress had begun expanding its jurisdiction over Native nations with the 1790 Intercourse Act. Now the federal judiciary took similar steps. In a remarkable display of audacity, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the United States shared title to all Indian lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the United States. Furthermore, he stated, Native Americans could sell their land only to the United States. This was a bold power play by the U.S. government. And there was more to come. During the 1820s, the State of Georgia made numerous efforts to impose its jurisdiction unilaterally over the Cherokee Nation. It organized Cherokee lands into Georgia counties; it asserted that Georgia state laws applied in Cherokee country; and it even arrested, tried, and executed a Cherokee man for a crime he had committed within the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson, a strong advocate of removal, actively encouraged Georgia, hoping its actions would pressure the Cherokee to leave the South. The Cherokee appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking an injunction against further outrages by Georgia, and in 1831, the high court heard Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia. In his decision, Marshall ruled that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the Cherokee (and by extension, all Native nations) were not a foreign state. He then fabricated from thin air a new political designation to which he assigned Native Americans. Their governments, he claimed, constituted “domestic, dependent nations.” That is, they were nations after all, but they were not foreign nations, for they existed within the proclaimed boundaries of the United States; and they were not independent nations, for they were dependent upon the United States for their continued existence. Marshall’s rationale for his decision was circular, self-referential, ill informed, and condescending. Native nations were not foreign, he asserted, because the commerce clause of the Constitution refers to them separately. This chicken-and-egg logic declared that Native nations were not foreign nations, for no reason other than that the United States said so. With regard to their state of dependence, the chief justice maintained that Indians were in essence pupils, learning to become civilized from their American teachers. Their alleged cultural short-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

166

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

comings, he reasoned, translated to political and legal shortcomings as well. In this political atmosphere, Georgia’s aggressions ran unchecked. The state went so far as to pass a rather incredible law that attempted to overturn the Cherokee Nation’s own democratic elections. Then, Georgia officials marched into Cherokee country and arrested Postmaster Samuel Worcester for violating a Georgia law that forbade all whites from living in the Cherokee Nation. In cahoots with Georgia, President Jackson even went so far as to fire Worcester to prevent him from claiming exemption from arrest on the grounds that he was a federal employee. A third Supreme Court case was in the making. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court was more sympathetic to Cherokee sovereignty. Justice Smith Thompson had previously authored a strong dissent in Cherokee Nation, convincingly arguing that the Cherokee were indeed a sovereign nation, albeit a weak one. Though his opinion had not carried the day in 1831, apparently it influenced the Court after the fact. As he had in Cherokee Nation, the Cherokees’ counsel again argued that Georgia laws could not apply in Cherokee country because they were superseded by treaties the Cherokee had signed with the federal government, the commerce and contract clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and Cherokee sovereignty. In Worcester, Marshall backtracked, proclaiming Indian nations to be like “other nations of the earth . . . distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights.” Although logically this decision should have overturned the “domestic, dependent nation” clause in Cherokee Nation, such was not the case. The longterm effect of Worcester was to establish the primacy of the federal government over states in relations with Native nations. That is, states had no authority over Native nations except as granted to them by the federal government. The Cherokee Supreme Court cases are collectively known as the Marshall Trilogy. Despite their highly flawed logic and even contradictory assertions, they still form the foundation for the legal standing of American Indians within the United States. As the United States continued to use brute force to conquer and rule Native nations during the nineteenth century, it continued to dress the colonial process in the niceties of legal sanctions. The basis for those sanctions was, and continues to be, the Marshall Trilogy.

www.abc-clio.com

In 1866, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the primacy of federal jurisdiction. When the State of Kansas attempted to tax Native Americans within its boundaries, Shawnee Indians sought redress. In The Kansas Indians, the Court ruled that Kansas could not tax Native Americans because Congress held exclusive jurisdiction over them. The decision did not stop there, however. Chipping away at Native sovereignty, the Court went on to say that states could assume jurisdiction if Indians dissolved their nations or if Congress made them U.S. citizens. Either of these two developments, the Court claimed, would nullify Indian treaties. The decision made no allowance for dual citizenship. As if taking a cue from Kansas Indians, Congress attached a rider to the Indian appropriations bill of 1871 that forbade the signing of any future treaties between the federal government and the United States. Furthermore, it banned individual Indians from signing any contract without the permission of the commissioner of Indian affairs, head of the Office of Indian Affairs. President Ulysses Grant promptly signed the bill into law. The Resolution of 1871 was the capstone on nearly three hundred years of warfare between Native Americans and Europeans and their descendants, and the latter were proclaiming their victory. The United States would no longer sign any treaties with Native nations because it no longer needed their permission for anything. Only a few armed conflicts remained. The United States had established its dominance, and now it was stating, in essence, that might makes right. The one saving grace of the resolution was its acknowledgment that the provisions of all previous treaties would be honored. As the end of the century drew near, most Native nations had been confined to reservations. A major blow to reservation-bound Native jurisdiction sprung from the U.S. Supreme Court case Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883). When a Sichangu Lakota (Sioux) named Crow Dog shot and killed a fellow countryman named Spotted Tail, the Lakota rightfully assumed jurisdiction and handled the matter through their own legal system, which is based on restitution. But Spotted Tail had been on good terms with the Americans, and many of them were outraged; by their standards, Crow Dog was literally getting away with murder. Crow Dog was promptly arrested, tried in federal district court, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Dakota Territorial Supreme Court upheld the sentence. His lawyers

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which found in Crow Dog’s favor. It ruled that, because Native nations were sovereign, a fact that was supported by the existence of treaties, federal courts had no jurisdiction over crimes committed between Indians on reservations. On the surface, Ex Parte Crow Dog sounds like a long overdue and resounding pronouncement in recognition of Native sovereignty. But such was not the case. With a nudge and a wink to the legislative branch, the Court noted in its opinion that only an act of Congress could change the current situation. Congress took the hint. In 1885, it passed the Major Crimes Act. The bill listed seven crimes for which the federal government could assume original jurisdiction, even if they were committed on a reservation by one Indian against another: murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. In the years since, the act has been amended, and ten more offenses have been added to the list, bringing to sixteen the total number of crimes for which federal courts may assume jurisdiction. The federal government was now free to extend its criminal jurisdiction over Native nations. The Supreme Court upheld the Major Crimes Act the following year in United States v. Kagama. Another congressional bill that struck at Native jurisdiction was the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, also known as the General Allotment Act. In this bill, the federal government asserted control over Native national lands. Allotment was the process of dividing up reservations into various parcels and then assigning fee patent ownership of those parcels to individual Indians. This was an egregious blow to Native sovereignty in any number of ways. For starters, it gave Congress the power to unilaterally allot reservations, regardless of the tribe’s wishes. Many (though not all) nations held their land in common; this would now end. The bill also restricted the rights of the individual owners it created; Indians receiving allotments could not sell or lease them without federal permission. Finally, after allotments were handed out, most of the remaining land, which the federal government termed “surplus,” was auctioned off to outside interests. Congress would pass a number of additional severalty bills over the course of the next forty years. This devastating policy wrought no tangible benefits to Native nations, struck at the heart of their sovereignty, and resulted in a massive land grab by Americans.

www.abc-clio.com

167

As the century ended, Native peoples were seeing their sovereignty erode at an alarming pace in the face of U.S. colonialism. Central to this development were the continued efforts of the United States to impose its jurisdiction over indigenous people.

The Office of Indian Affairs In 1824, the federal government created an agency to deal exclusively with implementing Native policy: the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA). Eventually renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), it would quickly gain a reputation as the least efficient and most corrupt office in the entire federal government. But more telling than the OIA’s astounding incompetence was its placement within the federal scheme. As an executive office, it needed to be placed within an existing department. The logical assignment would have been to the State Department, the department in charge of foreign relations. Instead, the OIA landed in the War Department (later renamed the Defense Department). It was clear that the federal government’s long-term goal was not to establish and conduct normal relations with Native nations. Rather, it sought the colonial subjugation of Native nations by any means necessary. Equally telling, in 1849, when the United States was a growing empire instead of a teetering, fledgling experiment, it moved the OIA to the Department of the Interior, which is concerned with domestic assets such as natural resources and wild animals. The very existence of the OIA set a tone for issues of jurisdiction. During the years in which the United States conquered one Native nation after another, the army was the sword, and the OIA was the hammer in that process. After a nation capitulated to the military, the OIA became the instrument of colonial control. The OIA was the federal government’s administrative arm, and its roles were many. The local face of the OIA was the reservation agent. In the years before modern civil service, this was typically a bottom-rung patronage position awarded to the minor supporters of presidential victors and their appointees. Frequently knowing next to nothing about Indian affairs, disappointed in the paucity of their prestige and salary, and assigned to a locale they considered unfavorable, agents were often corrupt and incompetent, and the OIA was plagued by a high turnover rate. The real job of the OIA agent was the direct colonial administration of Indian reservations. With

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

168

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

few guidelines other than the prevailing racism and ethnocentrism of the day, agents’ attitudes and approaches varied widely from case to case. Whether an agent chose to recognize the continued existence of Indian governments was entirely up to that agent. At whim, the agent could tolerate and patronize them or refuse to officially recognize them altogether. The agent could even replace them with his or her own contrivances. In short, the reservation agent was an autocrat. The OIA agent’s dictatorial powers were directly vested by the federal government. Other than the threat of further military intervention, practical power came from his ability to distribute treaty annuities and offer jobs to economically impoverished and dependent subjects. This power often played havoc with Native governing institutions. Although a reservation population might recognize the authority of certain Native leaders, an agent could undermine their authority by playing favorites. He could designate individual Indians to distribute annuities, thereby giving them tremendous power and influence. By the end of the nineteenth century, federal regulations had ended that practice. Instead, the agent and his staff distributed annuities directly, further concentrating their power. Another potent source of power for the reservation agent came from his ability to hire and arm hand-picked Native Americans as official OIA police. In 1878, Congress began to fund the creation of reservation police forces staffed by local Indians. These men, though members of a Native nation now were paid by, wore the uniform of, and owed their allegiance to the United States. Their boss was the reservation agent, who hired and fired them at his discretion. Thus, by engaging in his own form of patronage, the agent could reshape the reservation’s power structure. By 1884, two-thirds of all reservations had an Indian OIA police force. It was another blow to Native jurisdiction. The jurisdictional control of the reservation agent and his OIA underlings increased further in 1883, when Congress authorized the creation of courts of Indian offenses. During this era, the United States was attempting to commit cultural genocide against Native Americans. It called the policy assimilation. Federal legislation outlawed all sorts of indigenous social and cultural practices, including, but not limited to, religious ceremonies, dancing, singing, traditional medical services, and polygamy, to name a few. Congress created the court of Indian offenses to prosecute these “crimes.” OIA police

www.abc-clio.com

were now also certified as judges. They had the power to arrest someone, convict that person, and collect a fine, all in one action. Federal jurisdiction over Indians was so pervasive that Native people could not sign contracts without permission from the reservation agent and the commissioner of Indian affairs. This restriction, a result of the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1871, was so broad in its reach that American Indians could not even hire a lawyer without said approval. This meant that, if an Indian person were accused of committing a crime against another Indian person on a reservation, not only could the U.S. federal courts claim jurisdiction, but the accused Indian did not even have the freedom to choose his or her own counsel. And if a Native American wished to sue a corrupt OIA reservation agent, he or she could not hire a lawyer without the permission of that agent. Federal jurisdiction over Native Americans was so profound that the government even set out to control the movement of indigenous peoples. A startling illustration of this is the fact that, by the late 1800s, a Native American could not leave his or her reservation without permission. Enforcement varied from reservation to reservation and could be extreme. The Apache people of the Southwest had only recently surrendered, and when they left their reservation without permission, they were routinely hunted down and killed. Likewise, the massacre of Miniconjou Lakota (Sioux) at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890 on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota stemmed from several factors, the most immediate of which was that they had disobeyed the agent’s orders to stay put. In fact, the Miniconjou had not even left the reservation when the U.S. Cavalry overtook and slaughtered some three hundred of them. The direct colonialism of the Office of Indian Affairs and the totalitarian powers of the reservation agents would persist until well into the twentieth century. Under these conditions, federal jurisdiction over Native peoples reached its zenith, while Native sovereignty dropped to its nadir.

The Twentieth Century If the turn of the twentieth century represented a low point for Native sovereignty, the legal embodiment of that situation was the 1903 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. Lone Wolf was a Kiowa in Oklahoma who objected to the impending allotment of his reservation. Fortunately for the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

Kiowa people, they had previously signed a treaty that mitigated such actions. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek of 1867 stipulated that none of the reservation land, which was held in common by the nation, could be subject to any transactions without the agreement of three-fourths of the adult male population. However, the Supreme Court was about to give official sanction to the naked aggression of U.S. colonialism. Federal negotiators were unable to procure anywhere near the number of signatures needed for the allotment of the reservation. This failure occurred despite their fraud, which included adding nonKiowa names to the petition for allotment and striking actual Kiowa people from the official tribal rolls. When federal negotiators fell short despite their perfidy, they simply ignored the treaty’s relevant provisions and drew up plans to allot the reservation against the will of most of its resident Indians. Congress eventually accepted the dubious proposal. Lone Wolf then sued the secretary of the interior to prevent the allotment, and the case eventually advanced to the high court. Peeling the mask of civility from the face of colonialism, the justices rendered the following opinion. Congress had the plenary power to unilaterally abrogate any Indian treaty. Why? Because, despite any irregularities in the process, Congress was the ultimate arbiter of Indian policy; because treaty review was beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts; because Indian lands were under the complete control of the United States; because the binding requirement of Indian consent could be ignored in times of emergency; because the act of 1871 banning further treaties could be interpreted to mean that Congress could also annul previous treaties (even though the act of 1871 explicitly denied that); because Congress acted in the best interests of Native peoples; and because even if Congress worked against the interests of Indian peoples, Congress still had superior authority. The decision was a firm rebuke of Native sovereignty. It was the official declaration of colonialism. It was indeed a low point for American Indians in their ongoing effort to assert their jurisdiction over their own nations and people. But the assault by the high court was far from over. United States v. Sandoval (1913) concerned a man’s effort to sell liquor in a pueblo. This violated federal law, which prohibited liquor sales on all Indian lands. Joseph Sandoval’s lawyers were initially victorious in federal court, citing a previous Supreme Court decision that had

www.abc-clio.com

169

given Pueblos immunity from such laws because the United States had acquired their land after war with Mexico, and no treaties existed between the Pueblos and the United States. The high court now overturned the lower decision. The crux of its logic in so doing was nothing short of racism. Since Pueblo peoples were Indians, it reasoned, they were inherently primitive and inferior. Therefore, they were not entitled to challenge congressional decisions, much less seek immunity from them. The same year that Sandoval sucker punched Native jurisdiction, Congress gave the secretary of the interior the right to approve all wills and testaments of Indian people. In 1914, the secretary gained the power to completely quarantine a reservation during an outbreak of contagious disease(s). Shortly thereafter, the secretary assumed the authority to distribute to individual Indians those tribal funds held in common and to lease to outside interests any and all tribally held lands. In either case, the permission of Native peoples was not required. Even when the federal government attempted to do something positive for Native Americans in the early twentieth century, its high-handed actions led to dubious results. Such was the case with citizenship. From the inception of the Constitution, American Indians had been denied citizenship rights within the United States. The Supreme Court gave sanction to that stance in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) by ruling that Native Americans could not become citizens even if they abandoned their Native nations and assumed residence and employment in the United States. Indians were officially denied the right to citizenship through conventional avenues. But provisions in various allotment acts had foisted citizenship on some Native Americans when they accepted their land. The issue came to a head after World War I. Though immune to the draft, Native Americans had a higher per capita rate of participation in the U.S. military than any other ethnic group (the same has been true of all twentieth-century wars). When the deep sacrifice and honor of American Indian servicemen came to light, Congress decided to reward Native people. In 1919, it declared all Native American veterans to be citizens. Then, in 1924, it passed the Citizenship Act. The bill unilaterally bestowed American citizenship upon all Native peoples. Although the law was meant to be a show of gratitude, many indigenous people viewed it as another unwanted consequence of colonialism. A number of eastern Indians, in particular, were highly critical of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

170

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

the act. It was, they maintained, an assault on their sovereignty. After all, they were already citizens of their own indigenous nations and had not asked to be members of the ever-encroaching United States. And even at that, the supposed benefits of citizenship were often elusive. Just as African Americans were largely denied the right to vote in the South during this era, numerous states successfully prevented their new Native citizens from participating in American elections. Two jurisdictional bright spots did appear during this long, dark period. In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in United States v. Winans that the Yakima nation of Washington State did not lose fishing rights simply because it had ceded certain lands. The Court reasoned that Indians did not receive rights in treaties, they relinquished them. Therefore they retained any previously held rights that they did not specifically relinquish. The Yakima could continue to fish on the Columbia River even though it was outside their reservation. Then, in 1908, the Court upheld Native water rights in Winters v. United States. Residents of the Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana sued to prevent diversion of the Milk River, their only source of water. Similar to Winans, the Court ruled that the Indians of Fort Belknap had not lost their rights to the river when they ceded land adjacent to it. Nonetheless, the assimilation period, which extended from the late 1800s until 1934, was largely an assault on Native sovereignty. After taking office in 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt appointed John Collier the new commissioner of Indian affairs. Collier’s tenure would prove to be a watershed in the ongoing struggle over jurisdiction. A harsh critic of assimilation policies, Collier was more enamored with the experiments in indirect colonialism that Great Britain was conducting in Nigeria and elsewhere. He believed that it would be more efficient and humane if Native Americans were allowed to engage in limited self-government instead of being subjected to the widespread and overbearing authority of the OIA. Collier’s reforms were eventually watered down by a skeptical Congress, but to be sure, the secretary did not support the notion of returning full sovereignty to Native nations, entities that he naively and condescendingly romanticized. Rather, he believed that, if infused with a sufficient amount of American-style democracy and subject to federal oversight, Native governments could manage much of the day-to-day affairs of their reservations.

www.abc-clio.com

The official and lasting shift in policy came with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act. In addition to overturning many of the more odious aspects of the assimilation policy, the bill outlined a plan for reorganization: the installation of new governments on reservations. The vestiges of traditional Native governments would be scrapped altogether and replaced with a new Collieresque model: a combination of American republicanism and the corporate boardroom. From their soon-tobe-formed reservation districts, Indians would elect representatives to sit on a tribal council. They would also elect a tribal chairman (or president) and a vice chairman in a reservation-wide election. In addition, the council would feature an executive committee drawn from among its own ranks. According to the plan, tribes would then create a new constitution and bylaws, and then they would write a charter and incorporate. Whereas some people have viewed reorganization as nothing short of a revolution, another interpretation is that it merely represents the mixed blessings of some modifications to the colonial system, not an end to it. Either way, the IRA provided good and bad outcomes. For starters, Collier never sought Native advice when developing his plan. Consequently, and perhaps predictably, he was surprised when a number of Indian groups came out against it. Some Indians who had profited from allotment and other assimilation policies considered it unneeded federal interference. Indians who supported their own forms of government saw the IRA as a potentially fatal blow to their own jurisdiction, as yet another violation of treaties that had promised the United States would not interfere in Native governments. Their combined criticisms led to an amendment to the bill that allowed Native nations to opt out of reorganization. Reservation-wide referenda would decide whether or not to reorganize, and if so, whether to adopt constitutions and incorporate. And Oklahoma and Alaska Natives were excluded altogether, falling under separate, milder legislation tailored for them in 1936. Collier and his staff lobbied heavily for reorganization, mobilizing their resources and exerting tremendous pressure on Indians to reorganize. Nonetheless, it was rejected by 78, or nearly onequarter of the reservations, including the single most populated, the Navajo Reservation, which covers parts of three southwestern states. The measure was accepted by 174 reservations; of them, only 92

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

elected to make constitutions, and even fewer wrote charters and incorporated. For those nations that reorganized, the consequences have varied from reservation to reservation. For example, the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota has been a vivid example of reorganization gone awry. The original referendum passed by only the thinnest of margins, with a large percentage abstaining, a traditional form of disapproval in Lakota culture. Since then, the Oglala Sioux Tribal (OST) government has been the source of much controversy, including numerous impeachment hearings and even occasional political violence. The most notable dispute resulted in the seventy-one-day-long siege of Wounded Knee in 1973, an event that attracted international attention and witnessed the shooting deaths of two Indians and the paralysis of one U.S. marshal. As recently as 2006, the OST president was impeached. On the flip side, the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming has served as an example of smooth adaptation. There, Arapaho politicians found the malleable aspects of reorganization and worked the system to make it conform to many of their traditional governmental offices, procedures, and dynamics. The Arapaho tribal council has governed with great success. There were definite pros and cons to the system. Among the positives, the IRA ended assimilation’s relentless persecution of Native culture and began to reduce the patronizing and omnipotent elements of the OIA. But there were also obvious negatives. In a larger sense, the system is a foreign imposition on Native nations foisted upon them by the United States; the Collier administration simply created a template of what it thought Native government should look like and stamped it on as many reservations as possible. More specific flaws include no distinct executive branch, which leads to a lack of checks and balances, and no staggering of the tribal council election cycle, which can lead to dramatic turnovers in governments every two years. In 1946, Congress passed the Indian Claims Commission Act. It provided for an Indian Claims Commission (ICC) that would review cases of treaty violations and other outstanding grievances Native nations had against the United States. However, the act stipulated that all judgments (favorable or not) would be final, and in return for financial compensation as determined by the commission, all claims stemming from the original transgression would be canceled. In essence, the federal government was

www.abc-clio.com

171

attempting to pay a final bill for past wrongs, or at least those wrongs to which it was willing to admit. Judgments against Native plaintiffs meant that they would have no avenue of appeal within the American system. The commission was originally chartered for five years. To win their case, plaintiffs had to prove aboriginal title to the lands in question. The ICC would then review the case and assess the amount, if any, that was to be paid in compensation. However, so many claims were filed against it that the commission was continually extended so that it could hear its cases. By the end of the 1950s, it had heard 152 cases and rendered $42 million in judgments. By the time the commission was finally dissolved in 1978, it had heard 484, deciding 285 of them and authorizing more than $800 million in settlements. There were still 133 cases remaining on its docket that it never heard. Those cases were transferred to the U.S. Court of Claims. If the IRA and the ICC had their ups and downs, the termination and relocation programs of the 1950s and 1960s were mostly down. Termination was nothing short of an all-out assault on Native sovereignty. Formalized as a policy statement in House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 108 in 1954, termination was, in essence, the return of assimilation policy in disguise, its last, dangerous gasp. The federal government now acknowledged its ongoing shortcomings in living up to its treaty obligations. But instead of offering to fix those problems, termination’s solution was to simply end all treaty obligations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs would be disbanded; one by one, the federal government would cease to recognize Native nations; they would be “terminated.” It was a blatant attack on the treaty rights of Native nations. The federal government composed a list of all federally recognized tribes and divided them into three categories: those ready for immediate termination, those requiring some assistance, and those that would need continued federal support for the foreseeable future. However, senatorial politics, more than any rational assessment, often decided on which list a Native nation would find itself. Thus, reservations within states such as Washington, Utah, and Nevada, which were represented by protermination senators, were particularly at risk of termination. While nations ostensibly had to agree to termination, various methods were used for obtaining their assent. For example, several tribes were told they would not receive their ICC awards until they agreed to accept termination. For most nations,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

172

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

termination was an utter disaster. The Menominee of Wisconsin are a case in point. Targeted for immediate termination, Menominee leaders were misled and strong-armed into acquiescing to federal officials. Final approval was achieved by a “popular” referendum, in which only 8 percent of the reservation participated. After six years of rushed preparations, the Menominee Nation was terminated on April 30, 1961. One of the betterfunctioning reservations instantly became the poorest county in Wisconsin. The county’s tax base was insufficient to pay for services as basic as police, waste disposal, and firefighting. All tribal assets were transferred to a corporation, Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), and county expenditures quickly gobbled up meager MEI profits, pushing the corporation toward bankruptcy and leading it to sell off property. The reservation hospital, reliant on federal funds, closed. Schools, utilities, and other services either ended or were dramatically scaled back. Menominee assets had been valued at more than $10 million in 1954. By 1964, they had dwindled to $300,000. From 1954 to 1960, Congress terminated fiftyfour tribes, communities, and individual allotments. Some of the latter were solicited by individual Indian landowners, but the majority were implemented against the will of the affected peoples. However, some successfully resisted. The Florida Seminole Nation is an example. A bill to terminate them was introduced in January 1954. But the Seminole people were fortunate to have several members of the Florida congressional delegation support their cause. Of twenty witnesses called at the bill’s hearings, only three supported Seminole termination. After the hearings concluded, various Seminole groups continued to lobby Congress, and termination was successfully avoided. By the late 1960s, few observers could deny that termination had been a disaster, and the policy atrophied. Approximately twelve thousand Indian peoples had been affected by 109 acts of termination. Many of them fought to regain federal recognition of their sovereignty and treaty rights. In 1970, a group called Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS) mobilized on their erstwhile reservation in opposition to termination. They were ultimately successful. On December 22, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed a law restoring the Menominee tribe. Although most terminated nations have been restored—most recently the Northern Ponca of Nebraska in 1990—others are

www.abc-clio.com

still fighting for it. Although termination policy had been abandoned by the early 1970s, Congress did not officially repudiate it until 1988. Relocation was a population resettlement plan that worked hand in hand with termination in attacking Native sovereignty. Growing out of a 1948 job placement program, relocation quickly evolved into a national plan for moving Indians off reservations and into large American cities. Using propaganda to lure Native Americans into accepting oneway bus tickets to distant locales, relocation’s long-term goal was twofold: to liquidate reservation populations and to make Indians disappear through assimilation into large, faceless, urban populations. Aside from the program’s dubious motivations, relocation also was an attack on treaty rights and tribal jurisdiction. It stipulated that anyone relocating off reservation would lose eligibility for numerous Indian-only federal programs, such as access to the Indian Health Service. Because many of these programs in essence are extensions of treaty annuities that were often guaranteed in perpetuity, using relocation as an excuse to end them represented a massive violation of treaty rights against individual Native Americans. Like termination, relocation was largely a failure in any number of ways. The program was all but defunct by the early 1970s. On the heels of termination and relocation was Public Law 280. Passed by Congress in 1953, P. L. 280 extended state criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian reservations in Nebraska, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, California, and, later, Alaska. Additionally, it provided that other states could assume such jurisdiction without the permission of affected reservations either by passing a law or by amending its state constitution. The number of states eventually grew to a dozen. P. L. 280 represents a profound violation of Native sovereignty and treaty rights and an erosion of Native jurisdictions. Treaties signed between Native nations and the United States firmly established nation-to-nation relations between the two sides and the primacy of the federal government over states in those relations. The United States itself has officially reaffirmed this repeatedly, going back to the Marshall Trilogy. Therefore, an individual state within the United States can have no jurisdiction over a Native nation, in much the same way that Alaska could not extend its jurisdiction over France, for example. By allowing states to do so through P. L. 280, the United States clearly failed to uphold its treaty obligations. Like termination and relocation, it was

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

a colossal failure in its original form. It has since been transformed into something akin to a tense partnership between reservations, county governments, and state governments. Further attempts by states to extend their criminal jurisdictions over Indian reservations stemmed from the Assimilative Crimes Act. Originally passed in 1825, the bill gives states the right to impose their own “lesser laws” (minor misdemeanors such as traffic violations and the like) upon federal lands that have no local legal code, such as military bases and state parks. Although it seems clear that the law was never intended to apply to Indian reservations, federal courts have allowed this infringement, based on the bill’s rather vague language. Any extension of the Assimilative Crimes Act to reservations seems bogus, though it has at least been limited. Only crimes between Indians and non-Indians fall under its discretion. However, while its application has been restricted with regards to ethnicity, it has been wrongly extended in other areas. Generally perceived as not applying to consensual, or “victimless,” crimes, the Seventh Circuit Court nonetheless held in United States v. Sosseur (1950) that Wisconsin could use its laws to prosecute a Native American who operated slot machines under a tribal license on a reservation. Contrary to Sosseur, the Supreme Court asserted the legal separation between states and reservations in Williams v. Lee (1958), one of the few legal bright spots of the 1950s. In ruling against the non-Indian owner of a general store on the Navajo Reservation who attempted to use the Arizona state courts to collect on a debt from a Native customer, Williams stated that “the exercise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” The opinion went on to assert that it did not matter that the plaintiff was not Indian. Nonetheless, as recently as 1977 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended state jurisdiction under the Assimilative Crimes Act when, in Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game, it upheld the conviction of Puyallup Indians, under Washington State law, for selling fireworks on their own reservation. During the 1950s, the U.S. Supreme Court twice addressed treaty issues. As before, the Court was not afraid to directly contradict itself. United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks (1951) found that Native nations could seek compensation from the United States even if they had not signed a treaty. Just four

www.abc-clio.com

173

years later, the Court completely reversed itself in Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States. Now it was the Court’s stance that Native nations could not receive compensation without a treaty. The Supreme Court was proving to be as frustratingly inconsistent as ever. When the Navajo Tribal Council outlawed peyote on its reservation (the drug derived from certain cacti is a sacrament in the Native American Church), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals presided over Native American Church v. Navajo Council (1959). First Amendment protections did not apply on reservations, it decided. The court went so far as to declare that Native governments had a higher status than states. Ironically, what was a setback for the Native American Church was a show of support for Native governments. The 1960s witnessed a slowing of the attacks on Native sovereignty but by no means an end to them. While the Kennedy administration publicly espoused an end to termination, the government nonetheless moved to terminate the Northern Ponca nation in 1962. Not until the end of the decade would the federal government finally show signs of truly relenting in its post–World War II assault on Indian rights. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson sug gested a shift in the federal government’s Indian policy. He referred to the new approach as “selfdetermination.” Vague on details and soon to leave office, Johnson left it to his successors to outline the change. Embracing the notion of self-determination, Richard Nixon worked with Indian advisors to propose a policy that urged the final end to termination, which he decried as morally and legally unacceptable. His policy also sought to remove much of the BIA’s authority over reservation governments by encouraging tribes to contract directly with the federal government for needed services. However, Congress was recalcitrant, and it was not until after Nixon’s resignation that it passed the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Act and the American Indian Policy Review Commission Act in 1975. The first bill’s legislative mandate acknowledged the failures of federal paternalism and the desire of Native people to assert their sovereignty. In more concrete terms, it gave reservations more control over education, offered hiring preferences to Native people applying for jobs on federal contracts relating to Indian affairs, and pledged to maintain the federal government’s trust responsibility. The commission set up as part of the second bill was dominated by Native Americans, save for the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

174

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

chair and vice chair. The committee made 206 recommendations in its final report of 1977, including a call for expanded recognition of sovereignty that ranged from issues of civil and criminal jurisdiction to taxation and hunting and fishing rights. The 1970s featured more gains. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 worked to curb what at times amounted to little more than child theft from Native parents. Private and public agencies alike were now required to prove serious emotional or physical endangerment to Indian children before removing them from their homes. Previously, children could be taken from their parents with little or no justification. Since the bill’s passage, various loopholes and enforcement problems have surfaced, but many of the most egregious cases of kidnapping have been stopped. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was designed to guarantee basic religious liberties that were routinely denied to many Native peoples, including access to sacred sites, the use and possession of sacred objects, and the right to worship in traditional ways. The bill vows to protect Indian religious rights and gives the president the power to order federal agencies to consult with Native religious leaders about removing restrictions detrimental to religious practices. To the north, Alaskan Natives had never signed any agreements with the United States. Jurisdictional issues received some clarification with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. The federal government recognized Native title to forty million of the sixty million acres they had claimed. Although a boon for Native land claims, it was not as large a victory for Native jurisdiction. The government did not recognize jurisdiction by Native governments over these lands. Instead, it formed thirteen regional Native corporations, in which Native Alaskans received ownership shares, which they could sell to outsiders after a twenty-year moratorium. Alaska’s Natives also received separate shares in their individual villages, which were likewise incorporated. These shares could not be sold to outsiders. The difference? The federal government was willing to allow Native Alaskans to firmly secure their control over the jurisdiction of small villages scattered throughout the Alaskan peninsula while passively encouraging them to disenfranchise themselves in vast and lucrative portions of the state that were coveted by mining, lumbering, and tourism interests (most of the twenty-million-acre claim they had not received was

www.abc-clio.com

set aside for parks and oil interests). Fortunately, Native peoples in Alaska have benefited from history’s hindsight. Noting the sometimes disastrous effects of the General Allotment Act and Indian Reorganization Act, they have since moved to strengthen their hold over their lands. They pushed through a 1988 amendment to ANCSA that prohibits the sale of individual shares in the regional corporations without corporate approval. However, corporations are not governments. They can be dissolved or go bankrupt, and so there is still a very tenuous quality to the issue of Native Alaskan jurisdiction. A real issue confronting the latter of those two possibilities was the restrictive caps ANCSA placed on the profits those corporations can receive from nonNative corporations conducting business on their lands. The self-determination era of the 1970s was clearly an improvement for Native jurisdictional issues over the assaults of the post–World War II years. However, the 1980s ushered in a period of renewed challenges that has featured, in particular, a hostile court system. During the last several decades, American courts have wrought havoc on jurisdictional issues, beginning with a series of Supreme Court decisions. In the decision of Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority in 1980, the high court permitted the construction of the Tellico Dam, which destroyed an area where Cherokees garnered religious objects and medicine. That same year, the Court decreed in Badoni v. Higginson that Navajo religious rights were subsidiary to tourism and local hydroelectric needs. In Montana v. United States (1981), the Court ruled that states, not Native governments, have the right to regulate riverbeds running through reservations. It also severely limited reservation jurisdiction over non-Indians by claiming that the tribe can only regulate the actions of non-Indians on the reservation if their actions directly threaten the politics, economics, or physical health of the tribe as a whole. Another blow came with United States v. Dion (1986). The Court declared that federal legislation protecting endangered species superseded Native religious freedoms; Native peoples could not kill animals for religious practices if such actions were prohibited by federal legislation. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n (1988) overturned a host of lower courts and attacked the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 when it ruled that the National Forest Service should pave a road and harvest trees in an area of the Hoopa Valley Indian

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

Reservation sacred to Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa peoples. Even the Forest Service itself told the Court that it agreed with the Indians, but to no avail. The Court judged that the road should be built and the trees should be taken. Furthermore, it insisted that the free-exercise aspect of religious freedom guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution did not apply to Native Americans. Rather, they would have to meet the restrictive standard of proving that they were coerced into violating their beliefs or penalized for practicing them. In Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico (1989), the Supreme Court asserted that a state could in fact tax non-Indian corporations doing business on reservations, thereby threatening the profitability of many reservationbased economic development plans. The Court then engaged in baffling legal doublespeak in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon et al. v Alfred L. Smith et al. (1990). The Court maintained that states can pass laws prohibiting the Native American Church from administering peyote as a sacrament, yet at the same time it insisted that the existing laws in all fifty states prohibiting the distribution of alcohol to minors cannot apply when wine is administered to minors as a sacrament in a Christian church. State courts have been equally hostile at times. In 1988, the Wyoming Supreme Court decreed that Shoshone and Arapaho members of the Wind River Reservation had no rights to groundwater under their very own reservation. The decision was so outrageous that it led many Native groups to shift their focus from the court system to the federal legislature when seeking redress. But if the last two decades have been difficult times for advocates of Native sovereignty, perhaps solace can be found in the major historical trend that defines federal Indian policy: inconsistency. The tides may yet turn again in the twenty-first century.

Contemporary Issues In recent years, three issues in particular have attracted national attention: repatriation, gaming, and federal recognition. All these issues strike at the heart of Native jurisdiction. The debate over gambling took center stage in 1979 when, in defiance of state law, the Florida Seminoles opened a bingo hall that offered prizes of up to $10,000. The state attempted to close them down, but the Seminoles successfully stated their case in federal court. The Supreme Court eventually consid-

www.abc-clio.com

175

ered Indian gaming in California v. Cabazon (1987), asserting that, despite Public Law 280, any state that offered any legalized gambling of its own could not outlaw Indian gaming. The following year, however, Congress undercut the Court’s decision and Native sovereignty when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). It defined three classes of gambling. Class III represents the most sophisticated type of casino table gaming (card games, craps, etc.), and Class I is the simplest form of gambling. The act required Indian nations wishing to pursue Class II or Class III gaming to negotiate a compact with the state. In other words, although the Constitution and the courts have affirmed time and time again that the federal government, not the states, has jurisdiction over Native nations, Congress allowed the states to assume jurisdiction over reservation gambling with the passage of the IGRA. Several stereotypes have since sprouted up around the issue of Indian gaming: that most reservations have casinos; that these casinos are all wildly successful; that gambling casinos are anathema to “traditional” Indian culture and therefore “unIndian.” All these stereotypes are inaccurate and deserve further scrutiny. Because of the requirement to gain state permission for Class III gaming, most Indian casinos around the country do not offer fullfledged casino gambling. Class I and Class II casinos, which most Americans would not identify as true casinos, are much more common. Beyond that, some states have been more amenable than others over the issue. For example, Washington State was initially opposed to Indian gaming, but a change in administrations led to a change in policy. Nebraska has been continually hostile, levying fines of $2,000 per day and threatening military intervention against the Santee Dakota Reservation. In an effort to protect its own lucrative gambling interests, Nevada has actually spent money to campaign against compacts in other states. Internal factors also prohibit many reservations from serious gaming enterprises. A lack of startup capital is one frequent problem for impoverished reservations. Another is relative isolation from large population centers from which to draw customers. Finally, some tribes have not embraced gambling simply because they do not feel it represents their best interests. Consequently, only a small number of reservations offer Class III, casino-style gambling, and many offer no gambling at all. Indians themselves have split over the specific issue of high-stakes gambling. Some have eagerly

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

176

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

embraced the opportunity to use gambling to generate income. Various tribes have used gambling profits to offer their members schools, community centers, and health services, college scholarships, housing, care for the elderly, and, of course, jobs. Other nations have rejected gambling altogether for a variety of reasons. Some eschew gambling as a social vice that is contrary to tribal values. Others feel the money promotes corruption. Many are loath to sign a compact with states, believing it undermines their sovereignty. The Diné (Navajos), for example, twice rejected gambling in reservationwide referenda in 1994 and 1997 before approving it in 2005. Some nations have divided over the issue. The Florida Seminoles not only pioneered Indian casino gambling, they were also the first to witness the division it can cause. Some members were so opposed to the idea that they eventually left to form a separate nation, the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of Florida. Several Haudenosaunee nations have also seen conflict over the issue. Intimidation, violence, and arson have marred the debate on several reservations. An equally contentious issue has been the matter of protecting Native remains and sacred and ceremonial cultural artifacts. In an effort to put an end to the grave robbing that had supported enterprises ranging from small-town curio shops to the nation’s most elite academic and archival institutions, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990. No longer are amateurs and professionals alike allowed to wantonly exhume Indian remains or steal sacred objects. However, the number of skeletons already in the possession of non-Indians numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The University of California at Los Angeles alone held the remains of some four thousand Indians. Therefore, NAGPRA also outlined criteria and timetables for identifying and returning Native remains and ceremonial objects to their respective communities. The debate over NAGPRA has at times revolved around the false notion that the bill’s mandates limit legitimate scientific inquiry. The bill merely asks the scientific community to apply the same respectful constraints and cultural sensitivity that it already accords other Americans. In the past, it has not. For example, in 1972 when an Iowa road construction crew discovered twenty-six white bodies, one Indian woman’s body, and her child’s body, the white skeletons were reburied, and the Native remains were

www.abc-clio.com

shipped off for “research.” In fact, the scientific value of Indian remains, most of which are quite recent, is minimal, and the vast majority of Indian remains were simply stockpiling in archives or being exploited by entrepreneurs. NAGPRA’s origins stem from the grassroots activities of groups like American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD), which protested against the ongoing double standard toward remains. And although NAGPRA is a piece of federal legislation, its jurisdiction is limited. Private institutions are not required to return their remains. Thus, the profanity of Indian skeletons on display for a fee persists at curio shops and the like around the country. Debates over jurisdiction between the federal government and Native nations depend upon an important ingredient: federal recognition of Native nations. There continue to exist a number of Native nations that the federal government refuses to recognize. These nations typically have lived at the margins of American society, some (but not all) of them intermarrying with local populations at a substantial rate. They have nonetheless kept their ethnic identities, cultures, and national consciousness alive. However, since the federal government does not recognize their existence as Indian nations, they have no relationship with the federal government. Consequently, these nations receive none of the benefits that flow from federal recognition, including money from BIA programs, lands held in trust, certain tax exemptions, federal protection from state actions, and the right to sue for past grievances. In search of the same benefits and status that come with federal recognition, a number of them have sought to attain it, with varying success. There are three methods by which a Native nation may obtain recognition. The first involves a successful action in federal court against the U.S. government. This method is expensive, very risky, and can be extremely time consuming. Often seen as a last resort, no Native nation has received recognition by this means. The second method is congressional legislation. Clearly, this method is highly politicized. Thus far, only three groups have achieved recognition through this route, most recently the Arootsook Micmac Nation in 1991. The final and most common method is through the Department of the Interior’s application process. The Federal Acknowledgment Project of 1978 allowed the BIA to recognize previously unrecognized nations. Formalized in January 1994, this process is

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction

highly bureaucratic. It demands that a petitioning nation meet seven requirements: it must establish continuous Indian identity from historical times to the present; establish distinct Indian location or community of a substantial portion of its population; establish tribal political influence or authority over its constituents throughout history to the present; show current governing documents, including membership criteria and governing procedures; show a list of all known members who meet tribal criteria that is acceptable to the secretary of the interior; establish that membership is separate from other Indian nations; and establish that the group has not earlier lost recognition through congressional legislation. Another half-dozen have successfully navigated this process. Numerous other nations have been unsuccessful in their efforts to achieve federal recognition due to a number of obstacles. All three processes are expensive, time consuming, subject to politics, and degrading, as people are in essence asked to justify their existence. In addition, some previously recognized nations have at times opposed the recognition of more tribes for fear that it will reduce their share of federal money and benefits. If one of the immediate goals for many, if not all, Native nations is to strengthen their sovereignty by asserting their jurisdiction and working toward a more equitable relationship with the U.S. federal government, then the long-term goal may involve taking such issues to the international stage. More and more indigenous nations (within the current boundaries of the United States and elsewhere) may seek to take their places among the other member nations of the world. Efforts to do so are well established and ongoing. In 1921, the Haudenosaunee League of Nations sent delegates to London, England, to assert their sovereignty from Canada (the League is artificially divided by the U.S.-Canadian border). Two years later, they went to Geneva, Switzerland, and petitioned for entry into the League of Nations. Their petition was denied, though three sitting members, including Ireland, did vote in favor of it. More recently, Canada has carved a thirteenth province, named Nunavut, which falls under the jurisdiction of its resident Native peoples. Denmark has allowed the colony of Greenland, with its large indigenous population, to assert local jurisdiction (while still restricting its foreign affairs). With regard to U.S. Indians, by the early 1990s seventeen different

www.abc-clio.com

177

nations recognized and accepted travel passports issued by the Haudenosaunee League of Nations. In 1992, the United Nations declared that it was the year of indigenous people. A nice-sounding but hollow gesture; a more substantive approach would have been to admit indigenous nations to its body. Akim D. Reinhardt and John R. Wunder References and Further Reading Barsh, Russel Lawrence, and James Youngblood Henderson. 1980. The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty. Berkeley: University of California Press. Burke, Joseph C. 1969. “The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality.” Stanford Law Review 21 (February): 500–531. Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of Law: Reflections in a Glass Bead. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Cohen, Felix S. 1942. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1971. Of Utmost Good Faith. San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Sandra Cadwalader. 1984. The Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian Policy Since the 1880s. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fairbanks, Robert A. 1977. “A Discussion of the Nation-State Status of Indian Tribes: A Case Study of the Cheyenne Nation.” American Indian Journal 3 (October): 2–24. Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998. Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Goldberg, Carole E. 1975. “Public Law 280: The Limits of State Jurisdiction over Reservation Indians.” UCLA Law Review 22 (February): 535–594. Green, L. C., and Olive P. Dickason. 1989. The Law of Nations and the New World. Edmonton, AB, Canada: University of Alberta Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

178

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

Gross, Emma R. 1989. Contemporary Federal Policy Toward Indians. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Treaties 1778–1883, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; repr., New York: Interland Press. Metcalf, Richard P. 1974. “Who Should Rule at Home? Native American Politics and IndianWhite Relations.” Journal of American History 61 (December): 651–665. Philp, Kenneth R., ed. 1986. Indian Self-Rule: FirstHand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan. Salt Lake City, UT: Howe Brothers. Price, Monroe E. 1973. Law and the American Indian. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: The Historical

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Development of a Legal Concept.” American Journal of Legal History 34 (October): 331–364. Stanek, Edward. 1987. Native People: Their Legal Status, Claims, and Human Rights. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies. Stuart, Paul. 1979. The Indian Office: Growth and Development of an American Institution. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles N. 1987. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. Wunder, John R. 1994. “Retained by The People”: A History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. Ziontz, Alvin J. 1975. “In Defense of Tribal Sovereignty: An Analysis of Judicial Error in Construction of the Indian Civil Rights Act.” South Dakota Law Review 20 (Winter): 1–58.

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

F F

or more than two centuries since the birth of the United States, treaties have been central to the American project of schooling Indian children. Although treaty making with the tribes ended in 1871, and although not all treaty commitments have been faithfully adhered to by the United States, its citizens, or Indians, ratified treaties remain part of U.S. federal law. Many of these treaties provide for educational assistance, thus committing the federal government to an ongoing role in Indians’ schooling. From the 1780s until the 1930s, the goal of U.S. and missionary educators was to Christianize, “civilize,” and Americanize tribal boys and girls, turning them into white citizens in everything but skin color. This century-anda-half-long “era of assimilation” is the primary focus of the present essay, but developments since the 1930s are also pertinent. Radical reforms of Indian education began during the New Deal, reforms later extended and deepened from the 1970s until today. In the last three decades especially, the emphasis of government-assisted Indian schooling (reserved for Indian children) has changed, and federal authorities, along with involved tribal peoples, cooperate to reinforce tribal pride and self-determination. The vast majority of Indian children, however, now attend state public schools along with the children of other ethnic groups. Whether at Indian schools or public schools, Native American children were and still are powerfully affected by treaties made between their peoples and the federal government in the first eight decades of the republic. “You have no education,” declared Captain Richard H. Pratt, founder of the famous Indian Industrial School at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to Spotted Tail of the Lakota Sioux in 1879. Like generations of white Americans before and after him, this dedicated but ethnocentric educator assumed that, because tribal peoples did not educate their children within the four walls of a school building, the children remained uneducated. Yet education was highly institutionalized in traditional Indian societies. Family members (especially older people such as grandfathers and grandmothers), along with specialists in economic activities, warfare, art, and spiritual matters, systematically educate boys and girls into responsible tribal adulthood. In a typical com-

ment on the demands of such an education, Francis La Flesche, an Omaha Indian, wrote, “To us, there seemed to be no end to the things we were obliged to do, and the things we were to refrain from doing” (La Flesche 1963, xvi). From colonial times until well into the twentieth century, unable to see such apparently unstructured activities as education, European Americans have set out to Christianize and “civilize” Indian peoples through the schooling of their children. In northeastern parts of the present United States and Canada, for example, Roman Catholic Jesuit and Récollet (Franciscan) missionaries, along with Ursuline nuns and other congregations and orders, established farflung missions, some employing schools and some sending Indian children to live with white people. “Always strive by all manner of methods,” declared a royal French instruction in 1671, “to excite all the clergy and nuns . . . to raise among them the greatest possible number of the said children in order that through instruction in the matters of our religion and in our ways they might compose with the inhabitants of Canada a single people and by that means also fortify the colony” (Jaenen 1976, 176). Characteristic of future efforts, whether by French, Spanish, English, or U.S. missionaries and officials, schooling would thus convert children to Christianity but also assimilate them to the dominant culture and assure their political loyalty. Yet getting the desired results was never easy, as an Ursuline mother superior admitted during the same period. Out of a hundred children that her order schooled, “scarcely have we civilized one. We find docility and intelligence in them,” she noted magnanimously, but when we are least expecting it they climb over our enclosure and go to run the woods [sic] with their relatives, where they find more pleasure than in all the amenities of our French houses. (Jaenan 1976, 173) As later generations of Indian educators would find, keeping the children at their desks required a combination of compulsion, persuasion, and, above all, the convincing of kin and the children themselves that schooling was useful to the people. “Come over and help us,” pleaded the Indian depicted on the seal of the Massachusetts Bay

179 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

180

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

Colony in 1629, and at least for a minority of English Protestant colonists and for support organizations back in Britain, conversion of the “heathen” became a major rationale of colonization. The “Apostle of the Indians,” the seventeenth-century Puritan missionary John Eliot, for example, established fourteen “praying towns” across New England. As with Catholic efforts, schools were central to his mission. Initially quarantined from their “savage” family backgrounds, young Indians would first be saved themselves. They would then return as cultural brokers—the term used by ethnohistorians for mediators between cultures—to carry the Gospel and English culture back to their peoples. Some colonists sent tribal children to England; some, like the French, took them into their homes. A number of young Indians actually attended Harvard and other colonial universities and colleges. Missionaries such as Eliot, generations of the Mayhew family who established schools for Indian peoples of Martha’s Vineyard, and Eleazor Wheelock, who founded Dartmouth College and the famous Moor’s Charity School (which was attended by almost ninety Indian boys and girls) were undoubtedly sincere in their desire for Indian “uplift” into Christian society. Many fellow colonists, however, regarded such efforts as an economic way of pacifying Indians and of removing them from their lands. Indians themselves quickly learned the game of countermanipulation, seeing schooling of their children as a tactic for individual and group survival in the rapidly changing colonial world. Although these English colonial ventures reached very few Indian children, they established patterns for assimilationist Indian schooling in the area of the present United States throughout the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. Protestant colonial and American missionaries, government officials, and, later, “friends of the Indian” fused versions of Christianity and an idealized American lifestyle into an all-embracing, messianic vision. This “Christian civilization” was locked in a deadly struggle against “heathenism,” “savagery,” and all such supposedly deficient cultural states. Colonial missionaries and, later, educators generally combined an egalitarian and nonracist conviction of the capacity of Indian peoples with a near-absolute ethnocentric conviction that Indians must leave all their old ways behind and accept all of the new way. The school thus became a panacea: many Indians were too old and too set in their ways to change; therefore salvation, both spiritual and secular, would

www.abc-clio.com

come through the children. Like Eliot, generations of missionary and U.S. government educators thus struggled to separate children from their supposedly corrupting tribal environments, sometimes in large, off-reservation boarding schools. Patterns of Indian countermanipulation of white educators also persisted for the next two centuries once Indian communities came to realize the advantage of schooling to individual and group survival. And just as colonial governments made treaties with Indian peoples, so would the government of the new republic. In international law, a treaty is a documented agreement negotiated between two sovereigns or more, and it is ratified by the governments of the parties involved. As the United States became more and more dominant on the North American continent, pressure developed to discontinue treaty making with Indian tribes, which Americans no longer recognized as sovereign nations, which led to the end of treaty making in 1871. Treaties served their purpose from an American perspective, for they became “the legal instruments by which the federal government acquired full title to the great public domain stretching west of the Appalachian Mountains.” Yet throughout and beyond the period under review, many Americans were adamant that the United States should keep its part of the treaty bargains. To this day, Indian peoples, too, recognize the importance of treaties made over a century ago in holding the government to its commitments. Further, treaties were often more than mere devices for land exchange, and they brought about considerable cultural change to Indian tribes. Thus, they were “civilizing documents,” often with a heavy educational component: schooling in exchange for supposedly surplus land (Prucha 1994, 2, 9, 11, 226). According to the U.S. Constitution, the conduct of Indian affairs was and is the responsibility of the federal government rather than the individual states. Also, the making of treaties is a federal responsibility: the executive branch negotiates a treaty, and the legislative branch (through the Senate, the upper house of Congress) approves or rejects it. Within seven years of its establishment in 1787, the new government made its first Indian treaty that mentioned education. The treaty of 1794 with the Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge Indians mandated the establishment of mills and the instruction of some young men “in the arts of miller and sawer.” A decade later, in 1803, a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians of Illinois noted that, as most of the people had been baptized into Roman Catholicism, the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

United States would provide $100 annually over seven years toward the support of a priest and “to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature” (ARCIA 1885, LXXVIII). Thus was a pattern established: the use of the treaty to extend government support of secular and religious instruction—in this case, not even Protestantism. And in 1819, as we shall see, Congress would reinforce its commitment, one that by the early twentieth century had produced an “educational empire” that included hundreds of day schools as well as on-reservation and off-reservation boarding schools for the children of the tribes. It is currently fashionable to use emotionally loaded terms such as genocide to describe U.S. treatment of Indian peoples. Yet such treaties and legislation indicate that many government officials and concerned “friends of the Indian” sought acceptably humane and Christian methods (by their own standards) by which to free Indian lands of their inhabitants yet preserve Indian people as future citizens of the republic. Even before the war of independence, the Continental Congress (about to become the government of the colonies in revolt) in 1775 appropriated $500 for the education of tribal youth at Dartmouth College (ARCIA 1885, LXXVII). By the early nineteenth century, there was growing concern that Indians would soon vanish from the face of the earth if Christian Americans and their government failed to help Indians adjust to the new civilization that was overwhelming their traditional lifestyles. Few white Americans at the time showed respect for Indian cultures, whether of the hunting and gathering type or, in the case of many Indian peoples, agricultural. But through the schooling of their children, especially, all Indians could be raised into Christian and civilized society and thus could be saved in both this life and the next. As in the colonial period, these goals effortlessly blended a withering contempt for Indian lifestyles with an equally powerful belief in the capacity of the people themselves to respond and to rise into the privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship. Many Americans sought only the disappearance of the tribes, of course, even if this included actual physical extinction. But many others in and out of government sincerely believed that the offer of civilization and Christianity would amply repay Indian peoples for the loss of mostly “useless” tribal lands; thus “uplifted,” they would practice American-style agriculture and be absorbed into the population of the republic like other ethnic groups. The school, then,

www.abc-clio.com

181

often supported by treaty-mandated funds, would free most of the land of Indians and simultaneously free the Indians of their “savagery,” and all would benefit from the exchange. Further stimulating such thinking were a number of trends. The early nineteenth century witnessed the Second Great Awakening in America, a wave of religious revivals that powerfully stimulated Protestant missionary activity. American Indians—“our own heathens,” as a Presbyterian tract called them (Coleman 1993, 39)—were not neglected in this crusade to win the world for Christ. Simultaneously influential was a growing belief in the transforming power of education. This century was to see the rise of the school: the explosive expansion, in nation after nation in the Western world and also in Japan, of state-supported mass elementary education. For the United States, with its increasingly diverse white population, to say nothing of its even more diverse Indian peoples (African Americans, slave or free, rarely figured in this discourse during the early nineteenth century), the school would become the great unifier. Through its presentation of a standardized Christianizing and Americanizing curriculum in thousands of nearly identical classrooms across the land, it truly would create one nation out of many. From the Revolution on, education proved to be an important cultural tool for forming a national identity, maintaining communities, and establishing republican idealism, especially in a nation so diverse, with so many interests represented from different parts of Europe. Such guided change was pertinent for forming a new nation (Green 1990, 171). The school became “a formidable structure of persuasion,” inculcating American values, self-control, and Protestant Christianity into young Indians and children of other groups (Finkelstein 1989, 24). Thus transformed, these young cultural brokers from many different ethic groups would return to their communities to help instill American values into still-deficient adult members, be they German, Irish, or Native American. Beyond inspiring the educational clauses in treaties, this heady mix of idealism, social anxiety, and relentless pragmatism produced the so-called Indian Civilization Act of 1819. This “Act making provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements” was sweeping and yet explicit in its goals. Characteristically, it was introduced “for the purposes of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes . . . and for introducing among them the habits

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

182

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

and arts of civilization.” It empowered the president, where practicable, “and with their [Indians’] own consent,” to embark on Indian schooling. He was “to employ capable persons of good moral character to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation, and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic . . . ” Most significant then and later, an annual sum of $10,000 was appropriated for carrying out the provisions of the act. Further, “an account of the expenditure of the money, and proceedings in execution of the foregoing provisions, shall annually be laid before Congress” (ARCIA1885, LXXVIII–IV). Although the legislature discontinued this specific “civilization fund” in 1873—more than half a century later and two years after the end of Indian treaty making—it continued to appropriate money for Indian education. By 1882, the annual sum had risen to $135,000; by the end of that decade, to about $1,348,000. By 1900, the figure was $3 million—about three hundred times the initial 1819 fund, a massive increase in expenditure, even accounting for inflation (ARCIA 1900: 44). The act of 1819, then, was not a one-time measure. Legislation and treaties together signified a commitment to permanent federal involvement and permanent accounting in Indian education. Like other national governments and American state governments in the early nineteenth century, the U.S. government had gotten itself into mass schooling, but in this case only for a special and supposedly “problem” group within the nation. At the time of the legislation in 1819, the War Department exercised oversight of Indian affairs, and in 1824 Congress established a unit within it called the Office of Indian Affairs, later the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Headed from 1832 by the commissioner of Indian affairs, in 1849 the BIA was transferred to the Department of the Interior, where, despite some attempts to return it to the War Department, the BIA has remained to this day. In its first few decades of existence, the new Indian Office used the “civilization fund” to subsidize existing missionary efforts among the tribes rather than to plunge into new school-building ventures. Indeed, a later Indian commissioner, Francis E. Leupp, admitted in 1905 that for the first one hundred years of the republic (until the late 1880s, in other words) the education of Indian children “was practically in the hands of the religious associations” (ARCIA 1905, 34–35). This occurred despite the ideal of church-state separation supposedly so central to American republican ideology. By 1824, there were thirty-two such government-

www.abc-clio.com

aided mission schools among many different Indian peoples, enrolling more than nine hundred tribal children (Coleman 1993, 39). This apparent continuity with rather haphazard colonial missionary practices is actually misleading. By congressional fiat, the federal government had now become inextricably involved in not only the subsidizing but also the policing of Indian schools—and it would later begin to build and staff such institutions. Indeed, near the end of the period under review, commissioner Robert G. Valentine could describe the functions of the BIA as “primarily educational” in both the broad and the narrow senses of the term. It was, he wrote in 1909, “a great outdoor-indoor school, with an emphasis on the outdoor. The students in this school are 300,000 individuals, ranging in age from babies at the breast to the old men and women of the tribe . . . these 300,000 individuals speak about 250 fairly distinct dialects” (ARCIA 1909, 3). Furthermore, the government continued to use treaties to achieve educational goals. For example, in a treaty of 1857 with the Pawnees, the government agreed to establish two, possibly four, manual-labor boarding schools (which provided both vocational and literary curricula). The Indians, for their part, agreed to keep each child between the ages of seven and eighteen years in the schools for nine months of every year “or forfeit annuities equal to the value in time of tuition lost”—an acceptance of the principle of compulsory education, which was incorporated into many treaties. The treaty of 1863 with the Nez Perce of the Far Northwest obligated the government to pay $10,000 for the erection of two school buildings “and to employ two assistant teachers and two matrons indefinitely.” The treaty of 1867 with the Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche of the Southwest—one of the last Indian treaties—mandated the erection of a schoolhouse and the provision of a teacher for every thirty tribal children of school age until thirty years from the signing of the treaty (ARCIA 1885, LXXX–II). Again continuing patterns established in colonial times, Native peoples, or at least specific individuals and groups within Indian communities, often exploited schooling for personal and group advancement. Leaders of part-white ancestry, especially among southeastern tribes such as the “civilized” Cherokee and Choctaw, used such treaty funds to subsidize American missionary education for their peoples. Actually, in the pre–Civil War decades, direct government aid, important though it was, amounted to less than 10 percent of the money

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

being poured in to “civilize” Indians. The mission societies raised some of the rest, and Indian treaty money provided the bulk of it (Fischbacher 1967, 65–67). Thus, the government, the missionary societies, and tribal peoples became tied into complex and, indeed, highly symbiotic educational relationships—but increasingly, as we shall see, the BIA would call the tune, at least on the white side. Throughout the nineteenth century, therefore, Protestant and Catholic missionaries benefited from federal support and from Indian utilization of treaty funds to subsidize schooling; less directly, missionaries also benefited, of course, from the prestige and the increasing military power of the United States. For example, by the 1820s, the schools of the Protestant American Board for Commissioners of Foreign Missions (ABCFM) among the Cherokee of the Southeast had become “an international showpiece” (McLoughlin 1984, 132). At these and other ABCFM schools, and at those run by other Protestant (and Catholic) missionary societies, the regimens and curricula established earlier in the century became characteristic of mission education throughout the period under review and, indeed, of education in the government-controlled schools established during this era of assimilation. Curricula varied according to the size of the school, the availability of teachers, and the ability or English-language level of the pupils. At most mission schools and at government manual labor schools, a “half and half” pattern emerged. Part of the day was spent on common school academic subjects, which ranged from the “three r’s” and religion at small schools to highly ambitious academic curricula at large boarding schools, reflecting belief in Indian intellectual capacity. The rest of the day was spent working at vocational skills supposedly appropriate to gender: woodworking, blacksmithing, and farming for boys (although some came from agriculturally proficient tribes); dressmaking, cooking, and other “domestic arts” for girls. In addition, the larger boarding schools later sanctioned an impressive range of extracurricular activities, such as football, basketball, discussion and theater groups, and student-produced newspapers (vetted by the authorities, of course). From 1819 until the reform of Indian education during the 1930s, missionary and government school curricula were relentlessly ethnocentric. The goal was the destruction of tribal culture and the assimilation of all Indians into American society. “Give the Indian a white man’s chance,” wrote Indian Commissioner William A. Jones in 1903:

www.abc-clio.com

183

Educate him in the rudiments of our language. Teach him to work. Send him to his home and tell him he must practice what he has been taught or starve. It will in a generation or more regenerate the race. Such an education, he concluded bluntly, would “exterminate the Indian but develop a man” (ARCIA 1903, 3). Although some missionaries persisted in employing tribal languages, at BIA schools the language of instruction was English, even to uncomprehending and monoglot children. In 1886, the BIA explicitly forbade the use of Indian languages in its schools. “There is not an Indian pupil whose tuition and maintenance is paid for by the United States Government,” declared commissioner J. D. C. Atkins, “who is permitted to study any other language than our own vernacular—the language of the greatest, most powerful, and most enterprising nationalities beneath the sun” (ARCIA 1886, xxiii). In reminiscences and autobiographies, many exstudents recalled the anguish this policy of linguistic chauvinism imposed upon them, especially at the beginning of schooling. “For me it was very hard,” recalled Belle Highwalking, a Northern Cheyenne. “No one [of us pupils] spoke English and we couldn’t understand the white people when they spoke to us” (Coleman 1993, 105–106). Yet for her and thousands like her, the process of alienation had but begun: the curriculum excluded almost all tribal cultural knowledge (apart from some traditional arts, crafts, and storytelling late in the assimilation period). Thus, unlike young white American or English schoolchildren, who were educated into the values of their own peoples, young Indians simultaneously faced radical deculturation along with intensive enculturation into an alien lifestyle (Coleman 1993, Ch. 6). Finally transformed and imbued with “civilized” and Christian values, the children would return to spread the word among their own peoples. “Soon [Cherokee pupils] will be mingling with their countrymen,” declared the ABCFM in a classic description of the cultural broker in 1821, “and imparting their acquired character to others, and they to others still, in a wider and wider range” (Coleman 1993, 40). Missionary efforts in the Southeast, especially those of the ABCFM, were badly disrupted by the forced removal of most of the Five Civilized Tribes— the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—to the Indian Territory of Oklahoma in the 1830s. Despite protest from many missionaries

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

184

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

and other “friends of the Indians,” and despite an apparently sympathetic Supreme Court decision of Chief Justice John Marshall that the tribes were “domestic dependent Nations” (Prucha 2000, 57–59), most remaining southeastern Indians were forced along the infamous Trail of Tears to the West. But the Indians’ adaptive capacity reasserted itself in Oklahoma, as did missionary zeal, and the ABCFM and other missionary societies continued their schoolbuilding programs in the new land. In an impressive expropriation of white methods to defend tribal independence and identity, these five peoples also established their own, tribally controlled school systems partly supported through treaty funds. Each tribe built a hierarchy of local schools, boarding schools, and seminaries, and even sent promising scholars to white schools beyond the nation (DeJong 1993, Ch. 6). The five school systems were taken over by the federal government in the early twentieth century (ARCIA 1907, 349–355). Missionarygovernment educational activities elsewhere in the nation and even in distant areas claimed by the United States continued unhindered during the decades after the removal crisis. By the eve of the Civil War, Protestant and Catholic missionaries had also set up missions and schools among tribes as widely separated as the Omaha of the Midwest and the Nez Perce and Cayuse of the Far Northwest. Despite its earlier commitment and the educational clauses of many treaties, after the Civil War the federal government attempted to divest itself of its educational responsibilities to the tribes. Perhaps as a result of the exhaustion brought on by the war itself and by attempts to reconstruct the defeated South, and also out of a growing conviction about corruption in the Indian Service, the government attempted to hand over—we might say, hand back—Indian schooling to the missionary bodies. Through its Peace Policy, the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant first invited the Friends (Quakers) to suggest church members as federal agents and teachers to the tribes—a further extraordinary blurring of state-church relationships. In 1870, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker (himself a Seneca Indian—a highly unusual, early example of the Indianization of the BIA) noted the goal of achieving “a greater degree of honesty in our intercourse with the Indians.” He declared that the experiment had been such a success that other denominations would similarly be called upon “to lend their personal and official influences to such educational and missionary or religious enterprises

www.abc-clio.com

as the societies might undertake.” The fused secular and religious goal, according to Parker, was “to combine with the material progress of the Indian race, means for their moral and intellectual improvement.” The whole plan, he believed, was “obviously a wise and humane one” rather than a desperate last resort. Noting how Indians tended to pick up the vices rather than the virtues of white people—a common nineteenth-century belief, here regurgitated by a highly acculturated and “successful” Indian—Parker strongly supported the Peace Policy: The President wisely determined to evoke the coöperation [sic] of the entire religious element of the country, to help, by their labors and counsels, to bring about and produce the greatest amount of good from the expenditure of the munificent annual appropriations of money by Congress, for the civilization and Christianization of the Indian race. (ARCIA 1870, 474–475) By 1872, for example, Friends (Quakers) had been given ten agencies with more than ten thousand Indians; Presbyterians got nine agencies with a missionary and educational responsibility for thirtyeight thousand Indians; Roman Catholics had received seven agencies with more than seventeen thousand Indians (ARCIA 1872, 460–462). This crass parceling out of human beings produced much resentment among the denominations themselves, and it achieved little obvious “uplift” of the tribes into American civilization. The initially celebrated Peace Policy did not even produce real peace, for some of the most famous Indian wars took place during the 1870s. By the early 1880s, the ambitious yet constitutionally dubious policy had petered out. And although the federal government appeared temporarily to have escaped the Indian school business, in reality this was not fully so. Even during the heyday of the Peace Policy, it was congressional money that subsidized missionary educational ventures, and earlier treaty commitments still held. Ultimately, the government exercised final authority over all such activities, and the BIA accepted and validated the activities of each denomination involved. And it was the government that belatedly decided that the policy had failed for the tribes. The whole program, as Commissioner Parker noted, was established to achieve “the purpose and desire of the Government” (ARCIA 1870, 474).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

Indeed, before the late 1870s, even before the Peace Policy and treaty making had been quietly abandoned, the BIA was moving much more forcefully and directly into Indian schooling and would within a few more decades push the Protestant and Catholic missionary societies completely to the margins. As we have seen, yearly appropriations grew rapidly from this decade on. The BIA also began to build and staff its own schools directly under its control. In 1877, there were only 150 such schools, mostly day schools, enrolling about 3,500 pupils. By 1900, the BIA claimed 307 schools of all kinds with a total enrollment of about 21,500 pupils, about half the estimated Indian school-age population at the time. This number included day schools, on-reservation boarding schools, and large, offreservation boarding schools sometimes great distances from tribal lands (ARCIA 1900, 22–23). Of course, one learns to treat such government statistics with skepticism; but historians generally accept that, despite the ending of treaty making, there was impressive expansion of direct government involvement in Indian schooling during the decades after the Civil War. Some historians see an intensification of overt American patriotism at the expense of explicitly Christian proselytization at this time. But, just as elementary schooling worked in Britain, Germany, Japan, and other nations to indoctrinate the masses into order and nationalism, so from the beginning of our period to its end, BIA officials and missionaries strove not just to Christianize but also to Americanize their charges. Certainly these educators and “friends of the Indian” admitted to shortcomings in the actions of their nation and were often acutely aware of how individual white Americans could provide un-Christian examples to Indians. Yet no other nation on earth, educators believed, not even Britain, approached so near to the ideal of the Christian civilization. They could express their nationalistic convictions in stark and strident language. “It is of prime importance,” declared BIA Commissioner Thomas J. Morgan in 1889, That a fervent patriotism should be awakened in their [Indian children’s] minds. . . . They should be taught to look upon America as their home and upon the United States Government as their friend and benefactor. They should be made familiar with the lives of great and good men and women in American history, and be taught to feel a pride in all their great achieve-

www.abc-clio.com

185

ments. They should hear little or nothing of the “wrongs of the Indians,” and of the injustice of the white race. If their unhappy history is alluded to, it should be in contrast with the better future that is within their grasp. (Coleman 1993, 42) As the century wore on and the BIA increased its involvement in tribal education, most “friends of the Indian” agreed on broad goals for tribal education. But disagreement sometimes arose over methods. Which form of school would most effectively Americanize Indian children, the local day school, which most then attended, or the distant boarding school? Situated on the reservation, the local day school was obviously cheaper to maintain, but it allowed daily contact with kin and culture and thus dissipated the civilizing message of the teachers. The boarding school, especially the off-reservation boarding school, far more securely quarantined children from the “savagery” of their kin and was to many educators well worth the extra expense. Actually, both kinds of institution, along with an intermediate form, the on-reservation boarding school, persisted from the 1870s until (and beyond) the end of the period under review. Yet in the decades around the turn of the century, the large, off-reservation boarding school seemed to be the most promising tool for Americanization. Although missionaries had earlier built Indian boarding schools, the new wave of government boarding schools was a product of the vision and energy of Captain Richard Henry Pratt (later General Pratt). In 1879, he founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania—obviously a vast distance from the western tribal areas. An extraordinary man, combining powerful cultural intolerance with a deep sensitivity to Indian needs as he perceived them, Pratt was convinced that only by immersing young Indians for long periods in white civilization could they thus escape their barbarous ways and assimilate into American life. From 1879 until its closure as an Indian school in 1918, Carlisle became a home away from home to thousands of Indian boys and girls from hundreds of different tribal groups. Pratt’s example stimulated the opening of many more BIA off-reservation boarding schools. By 1900, there were twenty-five such schools with an average yearly attendance of about six thousand students at widely separated locations such as Chilocco (Oklahoma), Phoenix (Arizona), Santa Fe (New Mexico), Flandreau (South Dakota), and Lawrence (Kansas).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

186

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

Each school developed its own version of the “half and half” curriculum: literary and vocational education (ARCIA 1900, 15–16). As mentioned previously, many schools also encouraged varied and often popular extracurricular activities. And many also followed Pratt’s idea of “outing” students: sending them to work on local white farms during the summer months or even to jobs in urban environments. Thus, near-total separation from tribal society was achieved: first separation from kin and culture; then further separation from all Indians, even fellow pupils, for at least a few months each year. White educators made no apologies for tearing children from the bosom of the family. Many shared Pratt’s conviction that Indian kin arrangements did not merit the sacred appellation “home.” In 1863, for example, Commissioner William P. Dole claimed quite characteristically that Indian children who only attended day schools retained “the filthy habits and loose morals of their parents.” In a boarding school, however, the children were “under the entire control of the teacher; they are comfortably clothed; fed on wholesome diet . . . in fact, they are raised and educated like white children and on leaving school are found to have acquired a knowledge and taste for civilized habits” (ARCIA 1863, 172). Pratt himself could not have expressed the conviction more succinctly. Control was obviously of central importance: generations of white observers believed that Indian parents failed miserably to control their “wild” children. The schools would provide firm but fair discipline—often military-style discipline, along with uniforms, daily inspections, and drilling for both boys and girls. But more than control was sought. BIA educators sincerely hoped that the boarding schools might become substitute homes for their charges, with good food, comfortable housing, and professional but loving teachers. By the opening of the new century, then, as obligated by treaties and legislation, the U.S. government had plunged deeply into the complicated task of educating Indian children for assimilation into American life. It was an unusual undertaking by the federal government to assist “a non-white minority” (Hoxie 2002, 69). Indeed, no white ethnic group received such federal attention. But then, no other group within the American nation, white or nonwhite, had made treaties with the federal government. And the figures are impressive: along with the 25 off-reservation boarding schools referred to previously, by 1900 the BIA supported 81 on-reservation boarding schools (with a claimed attendance of 8,000

www.abc-clio.com

pupils) and 154 day schools (with a claimed attendance of 3,500 pupils). In addition, there were about 30 schools subsidized through government contracts. Commissioner Jones proudly declared in 1900 that these institutions were “all under complete government control.” Furthermore, the BIA still assumed “supervisory care” over mission schools with an enrollment of just under 3,000 pupils (ARCIA 1900, 13–44). But it was still a loose kind of control that the BIA exercised; there was no centrally imposed hierarchy of schools or standardized examinations. In the late 1880s, BIA Commissioner Morgan had attempted to bring greater order to this collection of schools through establishing a uniform curriculum and standardized textbooks and forms of instruction. He also attempted to inaugurate a graded system of schools through which students would progress: from day school (elementary education) through on-reservation boarding school to Carlisle or other off-reservation boarding school (vocational high school). Although he brought greater coherence to the “system,” almost none of the schools, even the most ambitious boarding schools, could claim in this period to have provided more than an elementary education. Indeed, as late as 1928 the BIA admitted that few of its schools offered anything more advanced: “There is not an Indian school in the nation that is strictly a high school” (ARCIA 1928, 13). Furthermore, it was obviously difficult to bring order to what was a loose collection of schools catering to children of diverse tribal cultures, who often spoke no English upon entering school. To accentuate such problems, nonattendance remained chronic during the whole of the period under review. Runaways—pupils who permanently or temporarily fled the school—especially plagued American Indian educators. In 1900, Commissioner Jones publicly admitted that, out of a possible Indian school-age population of nearly 40,000, only 26,000 Indian children were even enrolled at BIA schools, let alone attending regularly (ARCIA, 1900, 22–23). Absenteeism continued to decline, however, and by the 1920s some schools actually encountered embarrassing problems of overcrowding; but large numbers of Indian children still did not attend any school. By then, too, a new phenomenon had begun to manifest itself: more and more tribal children were attending local state public schools with children from non-Indian ethnic groups. At the turn of the century, only 246 did so, according to BIA figures (ARCIA 1900, 22–23). By 1930, this number had

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

exploded to almost 40,000—more than half of all Indian children at school (ARCIA 1930, 26–27). Almost all of this latter development took place at the very end of the assimilationist era under review. But the trend, which escalated throughout the twentieth century, merits mention here. The federal government also accepted and continues to accept a measure of responsibility—because of treaties, legislation, and other agreements—for financial assistance to such public-school Indian students. Problems of absenteeism and runaways provoked continual calls by educators for legal compulsion. As noted above, individual Indian treaties had sometimes included clauses allowing for compulsion, and Congress had earlier passed a number of laws permitting the BIA to compel school attendance on particular reservations. In 1891, the legislature for the first time authorized the BIA to “make and enforce by proper means such rules and regulations as will secure the attendance of Indian children of suitable age and health at the schools established for their benefit” (ARCIA 1891, 67). By 1893, Congress had allowed the withholding of rations and annuities (owed to tribes according to treaties) from parents and guardians who refused to send their children to school. But the next year, Congress partly backtracked and forbade the sending of children to off-reservation boarding schools without parental or kin consent. Congress passed other compulsory laws, and authorities on many reservations tried to coerce parents to send children to school, even employing agency police to round up and carry children off. Many autobiographical narrators tell harrowing tales of such experiences, and their accounts are sometimes corroborated by official reports (Coleman 1993, 45, 61–63). Yet even as late as 1900, the commissioner could write of the need for amendments in existing laws “which will take away from ignorant parents the privilege of continuing their children in a state of savagery and will bring the children into contact with the highest types of civilization” (ARCIA 1900, 35). Indeed, the whole question of compulsion remained controversial even among educators and officials, and a significant proportion of Indian children remained unschooled— not necessarily uneducated—through the 1920s. Another turn-of-the-century trend deserves attention. Some historians claim that by 1900 the culturally intolerant but racially egalitarian policies of the government began to change. Officials, according to this argument, became somewhat more tolerant of tribal cultural traits but simultaneously more

www.abc-clio.com

187

convinced of the racial limitations of the Indians. The schools were thus to lower their sights: to train Indians for work more appropriate to their future condition in life, which would mostly be as lowly manual laborers on the reservation or, for many women, as domestic workers for white families. Most Indians would thus become “hewers of wood and drawers of water”; citizens, yes, but simultaneously wards of the government, forever trapped in this legal limbo, forever limited by their racial “blood” (Hoxie 2002; Riney 1999). Other historians see far more continuity, at least in practice, whatever might be said about policy (Prucha 1984; Coleman 1993). The New Course of Studies (the more vocationally oriented curriculum of 1901) and statements by Indian commissioners and other educators can be read in many different ways and can indeed support either argument. Accounts by narrators who attended BIA schools around the turn of the century suggest that, whatever changes occurred in policy, those at the receiving end noticed few of them. Schools continued to be as culturally intolerant and teachers as humanly varied as ever, but not more explicitly racist in their treatment of Indian pupils. Although the rhetoric did change somewhat, and expressions of biological racism are more prevalent then, perhaps continuity rather than radical change best characterizes the treatment of Indians during this whole period. Whether working with missionaries or building its own school system, the major BIA goals remained unchanged: move them; school them; civilize, Christianize, and assimilate them. We might expect that ex-pupils of these schools, especially those surviving into the ethnically conscious later twentieth century, would have unanimously decried a system exhibiting such contempt for their own cultural heritage, one that employed rigid discipline and sometimes harsh forms of punishment. From surviving evidence— contemporaneous correspondence between officials, Indian parents, and pupils; and from reminiscences, autobiographies, and interviews—it emerges that Indian children responded in highly diverse ways to this schooling; indeed, the same individual might express strong ambivalence. Large numbers completely avoided attendance (although, as we have seen, by 1930 the vast majority of tribal children were enrolled at some form of BIA or public school). Large numbers began attendance but became either temporary or permanent runaways. Large numbers sickened, and many hundreds died at the schools. The majority—and we can never be sure about

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

188

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

the numbers—suffered, adjusted, accommodated, resisted, and began to use schooling to personal and group advantage. Some, especially the gifted and those able to make fast progress in learning English, thrilled to the new learning, which they saw as an expansion of their horizons rather than a rejection of tribal values. Although many Indian adults strongly opposed schooling, increasing numbers saw its advantage in the new world growing up around them and imbued their offspring with a strong desire to learn white ways. “If you run away from school,” one mother warned her daughter, “you’ll go back faster than you came home” (Horne and McBeth 1998, 31). Another ex-pupil recalled how, in the early 1930s, as the curriculum became more culturally tolerant, her mother was not too impressed when her daughters came home singing Indian songs and doing Indian dances. She had enrolled them “to be educated, and get civilized” (Lomawaima 1994, 36). In fact, for many Indian people schooling became an intensely family affair, with parents and other kin increasingly taking a strong interest in their children’s progress, writing letters to them and to their teachers, and visiting the children at nearby schools or even distant ones (Child 1998). Perhaps surprisingly, some boys and girls came to enjoy the military side of school life, especially the uniforms. Even more surprisingly, some actually began to see the schools as homes, just as authorities had hoped. Esther Burnett Horne, of partly Shoshone ancestry, was both a student and a highly acclaimed teacher at a number of boarding schools during the period under review, and thus she offers the historian invaluable multiple perspectives on the system. She was highly critical of how Indian schools attempted to destroy tribal pride and identity, yet she also saw another side. Reflecting back as an old woman, she believed that the Haskell Boarding School in Lawrence, Kansas, “provided a safe environment for me. The reason it was such a positive experience was that I had security there,” especially after her father died, plunging the family into poverty. In a passage with which some, though by no means all, of her fellow students would have agreed, she wrote, “I think also that the sense of community at Haskell was very strong. Among Indian people this is very important. We had pride in our school and in our [football] team, and we had such a strong school spirit.” Even in later life, many ex-students kept in touch and had “become part of our extended families” (Horne and McBeth 1998, 52–53).

www.abc-clio.com

This sense of belonging, along with such sanctioned extracurricular activities as football, helped Indian children and youth adapt to an alien educational experience. So did the unsanctioned student subcultures that developed at many of the larger schools, each with its own rules, ritual, and slang. Such subcultures could exclude as well as include, but those fortunate enough to become members could enjoy the thrill of resistance, secrecy, and belonging, all of which helped them accommodate the school regimen. Sensitive and gifted teachers, of course, made the school more bearable and even positively memorable for some pupils; indifferent, harsh, or cruel teachers made it equally memorable in the negative sense. Ultimately, it is the resilience of thousands of individual Indian boys and girls across a century and more of assimilationist schooling that has impressed historians. Forced into a bewilderingly new kind of education, most of them “just got used to it.” They spent years at the schools—sometimes with hardly a visit home—and returned to their peoples or passed into the dominant culture as American citizens of tribal origin. Furthermore, we must concede that, by their own criteria, the missionaries and government educators actually achieved a high degree of success during the era of assimilation. True, Indian peoples refused to surrender their tribal identities, identities that remain vibrant today. In addition, some pupils began to develop a complementary sense of panIndian identity at the schools. Yet tens of thousands of tribal children, decade after decade, often with kin encouragement, did learn English, reading, and writing, along with so much else of white cultural values and knowledge. Even in retrospect, few autobiographical narrators expressed resentment of the ethnocentric curriculum, which they and their kinfolk regarded from a pragmatic perspective: children go to school for white learning; at home they will learn the knowledge of the people. Ironically, in some ways the children learned too well, and some consequences of schooling were less acceptable from a government perspective. Ex-students could exploit their knowledge in the ways of American civilization, employing the English language, media awareness, American law, and politics in defense of tribal rights. Former students of Carlisle, for example, remembered how the renowned and feared Apache leader Geronimo astutely instructed them to turn white knowledge against its providers. Later, these and other Apaches used their schooling to hire lawyers who presented tribal land claims. Finally, in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

1971, the Indian claims court handed down a judgment against the United States of more than $16 million (Ball 1980, 290–291)! General Pratt, the founder of Carlisle, would have enjoyed the irony; according to some Indian accounts, he did not lack a sense of humor. Ironically, despite the cultural intolerance of the crusade, many tribal people began to identify with the schools. They came to regard them as “our schools” and often opposed late twentieth-century closings of, for example, old boarding schools. Again, Esther Horne well expressed the ambivalence toward and suggested the complex nature of the schools’ achievements. “Critics dismiss boarding schools as assimilationist institutions whose intent was to destroy Native cultures,” she writes. “While this may be a true generalization, the students and teachers at Haskell will forever be an integral part of who I am as an American Indian” (Horne and McBeth 1998, 52–53). By the early twentieth century, however, the rigidly assimilationist approach to Indian education began to come under attack. Apart from a few prominent spokesmen or women—Dr. Charles Eastman, for example, an ex-pupil of Indian schools who graduated from Boston University with an MD— tribal people themselves had little voice in the national debate about Indian affairs. But by the 1920s, influential groups of (mostly) white reformers had begun to focus their attentions on the whole question of Indian policy and specifically on Indian education. Rejecting the ethnocentric and optimistic tenor of official reports and reflecting a growing anthropological appreciation of non-Western cultures, groups such as the American Indian Defense Association assailed the wisdom of a century in Native American affairs. The mounting criticism received powerful expression in The Problem of Indian Administration (Institute for Government Research, 1928). This huge study is generally referred to as the Meriam Report, as it was produced by a team— including the Winnebago Indian, Henry Roe Cloud—under the directorship of Dr. Lewis Meriam. The carefully researched and calmly written critique devoted more than eight hundred pages to telling the secretary of the interior, to whom the BIA was responsible, just what was wrong with Indian administration. The section on education was written by W. Carson Ryan, Jr., from 1930 to 1935 director of Indian education in the BIA. He was especially critical of government policies and practices in education, rejecting the “civilize or die” maxim and

www.abc-clio.com

189

instead insisting that Indians should be allowed to adapt at their own rate to American ways. Almost every aspect of Indian schooling came in for criticism, from its ethnocentric and rigid curriculum— the vocational side of which often degenerated into the exploitation of pupil labor to help support the schools—to the severe health hazards faced by pupils. Influenced also by the so-called progressive education movement, the report advocated more sensitive and community-centered education, the kind that would encourage creativity and help produce adults capable of living full lives in the communities of their choice. Not only did the Meriam Report make powerful reading, it was also powerfully influential. Even before Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1932, Ryan had attempted to put some of these ideas into effect. But Roosevelt’s choice of reformer John Collier as BIA commissioner in 1933 led to radical change in many areas of Indian policy and practice. Working initially with Ryan and bringing to the job a passionate and even mystical appreciation of Indian cultures (as he perceived them), Collier wrought changes in many areas of policy and practice, especially in education. Here he drew upon his own experiences (actually quite limited) among Indian peoples, openly utilized the ideas of anthropologists, introduced further progressive ideas, and attempted above all to foster rather than destroy Indian cultural values. By the end of World War II, Collier had been forced from office, and in the 1950s the pendulum in Indian education would temporarily swing back— but not completely—toward older assimilationist thinking. Yet the 1930s mark the most radical break in Indian educational policies and practices since the beginning of the republic—indeed, since 1492. Despite the apparent defeat of Collier’s approach in the 1950s—expressed especially in the Termination Policy, reminiscent of the 1870s Peace Policy, which sought to end federal responsibility for Indian peoples—the tide would turn yet again. By the 1960s and 1970s, BIA thinking on Indian education would swing back toward acceptance of government commitment, along with increased appreciation of Indian culture and increased faith in tribal sovereignty and Indian self-determination. The shift from BIA schools to state public schools also persisted throughout the twentieth century. By the early twenty-first century, only about 10 percent of tribal children attend Indian schools (reserved for tribal children), and these are often run

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

190

Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights

by their own peoples on BIA grants or contracts. The other 90 percent attend state public schools with American children of other ethnic groups. The BIA still funds seven off-reservation boarding schools (four of which are BIA operated and three tribally operated by contracts). Some older Indians are enrolled at such BIA-operated post-secondary institutes as the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, or the Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU), formerly the Haskell Boarding School. Others attend some of the twenty-six BIA-funded, tribally controlled community colleges. Tens of thousands of young men and women attend a variety of white American colleges and universities. Obviously, in the early twenty-first century, American Indian peoples have far greater control than in 1903 over the education of their children at specific Indian schools. Yet, as during the era of assimilation, the treaty is still central to Indian education of all kinds. “The United States Government,” declares the Office of Indian Education Programs (of the BIA) in 2002, “has a unique legal relationship with American Indian Tribal Governments as set forth in the Constitution . . . Federal statutes, treaties and court decisions.” Although major public responsibility for education “is reserved respectively for the States, the education of Indian children is an exception” (Hoxie 2002, 2–3). Those 361 treaties ratified before 1871 remain part of federal law, and many of them commit the federal government to subsidization of Indian education. “Treaties are on the book,” wrote historian Francis Paul Prucha, “and the courts have supported them” (Prucha 1994, 18). Whereas during the assimilationist period white educators interpreted this responsibility as mandating total control of Indian schooling, including curriculum, today it is exercised in partnership with Indian peoples, often in a government-to-(tribal) government relationship. The BIA and other federal agencies work together with the tribes to encourage the learning of traditional as well as dominant cultural values. Yet considering the imbalance in population and political power—about four million people of Native American ancestry and close to three hundred million other Americans—it is likely that, in the foreseeable future, the tribes will continue to face a peculiar challenge. They must constantly struggle to maintain adequate local control over the education of their children, while simultaneously holding the United States to its commitments—many of them

www.abc-clio.com

solemnly accepted in treaties—to Native American education. Michael C. Coleman

ABC-CLIO

References and Further Reading Adams, David Wallace. 1995. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ARCIA (Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior). 1863–1930. Ball, Eve, with Nora Henn and Lynda A. Sanchez. 1980. Indeh: An Apache Odyssey. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bloom, John. 2000. To Show What an Indian Can Do: Sports at Native American Boarding Schools. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Child, Brenda J. 1998. Boarding School Seasons: American Indian Families, 1900–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cogley, Richard W. 1999. John Eliot’s Mission to the Indians Before King Philip’s War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coleman, Michael C. 1993. American Indian Children at School, 1850–1930. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Coleman, Michael C. 2007. Government Education, American Indians, and the Irish: A Comparative Study. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. DeJong, David H. 1993. Promises of the Past: A History of Indian Education in the United States. Golden, CO: North American Press. Eastman, Charles A. (Ohiyesa). 1977. From the Deep Woods to Civilization: Chapters in the Autobiography of an Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ellis, Clyde. 1996. To Change Them Forever: Indian Education at the Rainey Mountain Boarding School, 1893–1920. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Finkelstein, Barbara. 1989. Governing the Young: Teacher Behavior in Popular Primary Schools in Nineteenth-Century United States. New York: Falmer Press. Fischbacher, Theodore. 1967. “A Study of the Federal Government in the Education of the American Indian.” Unpublished PhD dissertation. Arizona State University. Green, Andy. 1990. Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA. London: Macmillan. Haig-Brown, Celia. 1988. Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Tillacum Library. Holt, Marilyn Irvin. 2001. Indian Orphanages. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

1-800-368-6868

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930

Horne, Esther B., and Sally McBeth. 1998. Essie’s Story: The Life and Legacy of a Shoshone Teacher. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoxie, Frederick E. 2002. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hyer, Sally. 1990. One House, One Voice, One Heart: Native American Education at the Santa Fe Indian School. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press. La Flesche, Francis. 1963. The Middle Five: Indian Schoolboys of the Omaha Tribe. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (Orig. pub. 1900.) Institute for Government Research. 1928. The Problem of Indian Administration. [The Meriam Report]. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Jaenen, Cornelius. 1976. Friend and Foe: Aspects of French-Amerindian Cultural Contact in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Ontario, Canada: McClellan and Stewart. Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 1994. They Called It Prairie Light: The Story of Chilocco Indian School. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 2002. “American Indian Education: By Indians Versus For Indians.” In A Companion to American Indian History, eds. Philip J. Deloria and Neal Salisbury, 422–440. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell. McBeth, Sally J. 1983. Ethnic Identity and the Boarding School Experience of West-Central Oklahoma American Indians. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. McLoughlin, William G. 1984. Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789–1839. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mihesuah, Devon. 1993. Cultivating the Rosebuds: The Education of Women at the Cherokee Female Academy, 1851–1909. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Miller, J. R. 1996. Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

www.abc-clio.com

191

Pratt, Richard Henry. 1964. Battlefield and Classroom: Four Decades with the American Indians, 1867–1904. Ed. Robert M. Utley. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1979. The Churches and Indian Schools, 1888–1912. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Vols. 1 and 2. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of United States Indian Policy, 3rd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Riney, Scott. 1999. The Rapid City Indian School, 1898–1933. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sekaquaptewa, Helen. 1969. Me and Mine: The Life Story of Helen Sekaquaptewa. As Told to Louis Udall. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Standing Bear, Luther. 1975. My People the Sioux. Ed. E. A. Brininstool. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Orig. pub. 1928.) Stearns, Peter N. 1998. Schools and Schooling in Industrial Society: Japan and the West, 1870–1940. Boston: Bedford. Szasz, Margaret Connell. 1988. Indian Education in the American Colonies, 1607–1783. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Szasz, Margaret Connell. 1999. Education and the American Indians: The Road to SelfDetermination Since 1928. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Trennert, Robert A., Jr. 1988. The Phoenix Indian School: Forced Assimilation in Arizona, 1891–1935. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Vincent, David. 2000. The Rise of Mass Literacy: Reading and Writing in Modern Europe. Cambridge, England: Polity.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Related Treaty Issues

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

Alaska

N N

o Native Alaskan nation ever entered into a treaty with the United States. During the treaty-making era of the United States, which ended in 1871, the lands of the Inuit, the Aleut, and the Athabascan in Alaska were mostly bypassed by the swarms of settlers that uprooted Indians from the lower forty-eight states. Questions of land ownership, with several exceptions, lay dormant for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was not until Alaska statehood in 1959 and the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay a decade later that Alaska Native lands attained enough economic value to prompt serious congressional attention. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), a sweeping extinction of aboriginal title in exchange for a land and financial package that federal officials lauded as the richest ever awarded to an American Native group. As with most Indian treaties, a group of representative Native leaders, in this case the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), ratified the terms of the agreement. The Alaska Purchase Treaty of 1867 with Russia provided little guidance for determining the status of Alaska Natives. The comparatively short document stated, “The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes in that country” (15 Stat. 539). Before 1905, the United States saw little need to reserve for Alaska Natives an “aboriginal status” similar to that recognized for Native Americans of the lower forty-eight states. Early federal land laws within the territory sought to protect both Native and non-Native inhabitants’ rights to the land they actively used and possessed. These laws implied that Alaska Natives were entitled only to the land they occupied and, unlike Indians, did not possess an inherent aboriginal title. Neither did the courts, in several early cases, apply the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act to Alaska Natives, for they did not see Alaska as part of Indian country. The Organic Act for the Territory of Alaska of 1884 specified that federal schools within Alaska be established “without regard to race.” Acting within what he probably thought was the intent of the legislation, the solicitor for the Department of the Interior

ruled that Alaska Natives did not possess the same relationship with the federal government as did Indians in the lower forty-eight states. Thus, the job of educating Alaska Natives fell upon the federal Bureau of Education rather than the Office of Indian Affairs (later the BIA). Under the guidance of Sheldon Jackson, a Presbyterian missionary appointed general agent for education in Alaska, the Bureau of Education established schools in outlying villages throughout Alaska. These schools, staffed with federal teachers, also provided other services, including health care and law enforcement. The treatment of Alaska Natives shifted in the direction of federal Indian policy in 1905, when Jackson began to promote the creation of executive order reservations for various uses, including subsistence, reindeer breeding, and schools. Local and federal officials also saw a need to protect Alaska Natives from the diseases and corruption of settlers, as the soon-to-be-completed Alaska Railroad was expected to bring thousands of immigrants to homestead Alaska lands. But only a few Alaska Natives could be persuaded to move onto the reservations. Because the wave of immigrants never came, local and federal officials saw no need to force relocation, an action that had started numerous Indian wars. The reservations nevertheless proved useful, and the executive branch eventually approved more than 150 reservations varying in size from one acre to several hundred thousand. In 1906, Congress further implied a similarity between Alaska Natives and Indians when it passed the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which allowed any Alaska Native to claim up to 160 acres as a homestead held in trust. Many provisions of the act were similar to the Dawes Act, passed for Indians in 1887. Alienation of land was later allowed with the permission of the secretary of the interior. As competition over natural resources intensified, some white settlers questioned the authority of the government to create executive order Native reservations. Non-Native encroachment upon these tracts led to several court cases the rulings of which implied a federal relationship similar to the one with Indians. In the most important of the cases, Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the exclusive status of these reservations. Based on this decision, the U.S. solicitor general in

195 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

196

Related Treaty Issues

1923 reversed Department of the Interior (DOI) policy and acknowledged the similarity in the federal relationship with Alaska Natives and Indians. After this time, the State of Alaska and much of the public staunchly opposed the creation of any more reservations. However, a few Alaska Native leaders who lived near salmon-rich rivers or coastal areas saw potential in Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) reservations as protected economic zones. Competition from white commercial fishermen depleted the supply of salmon and thus threatened their livelihood. They looked with envy at the prosperous cannery at Metlakatla, a reservation established for the Tsimshian tribe in 1891. Its residents enjoyed an offshore fishing zone protected by federal law that was confirmed by Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States in 1916. For the next three decades, Haida, Tlingit, and other tribes, with help from the DOI, fought the commercial canneries for the establishment of similar protected reservations. Their efforts fell short due to the post–World War II federal termination policy and the lobby efforts of the State of Alaska. Of three IRA reservations approved by the federal government, two were rejected by tribal vote. A third, at Hydaburg, was approved by the Haida tribe. In 1952, the tribe filed suit to defend its reservation fishing rights, but the district court in United States v. Libby, McNeill and Libby (107 F. Supp. 697) invalidated the reservation. From 1946 to 1966, Congress reviewed several bills that offered limited monetary compensation to Alaska Natives for extinguishment of their aboriginal title. Guided by the federal termination policy, powerful legislators opposed Alaska Natives getting any land except for a few parcels around their villages.

The Fight over Alaska Native Claims Shortly after statehood, the State of Alaska and various oil companies, miners, and homesteaders rushed to claim Alaska’s best federally owned lands. Native village councils, other Native groups, and the BIA opposed many of these selections, claiming aboriginal title. To allow Congress to settle the contested claims, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began to withhold approval of the disputed land claim applications in 1963. This “land freeze” became known informally as the Treaty of Caribou Creek. After three years of congressional stalemate, Interior secretary Stewart Udall expanded the land freeze to include applications for oil leases, land titles, rights-of-way, and all other interests in federal

www.abc-clio.com

lands. Most developers, oil companies, and nonNative Alaskans opposed the land freeze, for it slowed the Alaskan economy and gave the Alaska Natives negotiating leverage. Contradictory sections of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 were partially responsible for the land rights conflict. Section 6 of the act allowed the State of Alaska to claim 103.35 million acres of federal land, whereas Section 4 stated, in effect, that any lands clouded by aboriginal title would remain under federal authority. Because aboriginal title had yet to be extinguished for most of the 375 million acres of federal land in Alaska, Native land claims appeared enormous. The size and unique nature of a prospective settlement required congressional action. Not long after statehood, Alaska Native leaders and advocates saw the possibility of losing lands critical for subsistence if the state of Alaska were to successfully claim them. Rural and urban Alaska Native groups sprang up to address this issue and its possible congressional settlement; but the great distances within Alaska, the diversity of Alaska Natives, and sometimes disputes among Alaska Native groups presented a formidable barrier to any unified action. In the early 1960s, the establishment of Native news media, particularly the Tundra Times, overcame this barrier by informing villagers of land issues and the activities of Native organizations. In October 1966, the first statewide meeting of Alaska Natives was held in Anchorage. Nearly three hundred Inupiat, Aleut, and Athabascan Indians attended a BIA hearing on land issues and discussed upcoming legislation. Most important, they created an organization, the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), to present a united front for negotiating a land deal with Congress and to form a voting bloc to gain leverage in state politics. For the United States, the AFN would add legitimacy to any general settlement that covered a widely scattered, culturally diverse population. A year later, the DOI wrote a bill that allowed each village to claim up to fifty thousand acres (a total of approximately ten million acres for two hundred villages). The land would be held in trust for twenty-five years, and its use would be controlled by the DOI. It authorized Alaska Native groups to file suit in the U.S. Court of Claims for monetary compensation for land clouded by aboriginal title but not claimed by Alaska Natives. The bill required the court of claims to use the U.S. purchase price of $7.2 million in 1867 as a proper valuation of aboriginal

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

title in 1867. With one hundred years of interest, the figure would rise to between $50 million and $100 million. But the amount of money, the prospect of DOI control of the trust land, and the possibility of a long-drawn-out lawsuit did not appeal to Alaska Native leaders. Eager to obtain a quick settlement, Alaska governor Walter Hickel led the creation of a statesponsored task force composed of Native state legislators and AFN leaders. With input from state-sponsored advisors, the task force proposed a novel agreement that included a much larger land and financial award to be distributed under a corporate model. Their draft authorized forty million acres. The monetary settlement comprised an immediate $20 million payment, 10 percent of the oil lease revenue from the continental shelf, and 10 percent of the revenue from the development of state of Alaska lands obtained by selection under the Alaska Statehood Act. Most important, the land and money would be distributed among village and regional corporations chartered under the state of Alaska. Alaska Natives would receive shares that would be inalienable for 150 years. The bill failed to survive the objections of the DOI, whose officials believed that forty million acres and the continental oil lease money were too generous. The DOI countered with another version of its original bill, offering the same acreage as before but changing the possible money compensation from a court of claims settlement to an up-front payment of $180 million. AFN leaders rejected the DOI bill as insufficient. By 1971, the clamor for a settlement was especially loud from the oil companies, who wanted to start immediately on a trans-Alaska pipeline, and the state of Alaska, which faced bankruptcy if it did not soon realize oil revenues from the Prudhoe Bay discovery. Due to the land freeze, the state of Alaska had not received title to any federal land, nor had the BLM been able to lease any land to oil companies for the previous five years. Supporters of a settlement were also threatened by the growing power of a newly emerged conservation group, the Alaska Coalition, who wanted to extend the land freeze (and thus block the Alaska pipeline) until an appropriate land use plan could be implemented for federal lands. The coalition feared the environmental destruction that developers, including the proposed Alaska Native corporations, would cause through abuses such as clear-cutting timberlands, oil spills, or unregulated mining.

www.abc-clio.com

197

Two significant issues blocking settlement were the amount of land (if any) to be awarded and the terms of its ownership. From 1968 to 1971, about a dozen bills and proposals emerged, with acreage awards that varied from zero to sixty million and ownership rights that ranged from trust status to nonexclusive subsistence use. The AFN faced formidable opposition from Senator Wayne Aspinall, chairman of the House Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, and Senator Henry Jackson, chairman of the Senate Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs. Both senators espoused the 1940s and 1950s termination ideology of assimilation: that tribal existence, reservations, trust lands, and tribal sovereignty impeded what was best for Indians. Senators Jackson and Aspinall favored a smaller, money-only settlement. The AFN lobbied intensely for forty million acres and substantial monetary compensation. They found support from the Nixon administration and the oil companies, both desperate for an agreement before the Alaska Coalition could muster the votes to add its conservation amendments, which many believed would stall the Alaskan economy with federal red tape. The final version of the bill contained most of the acreage and money that AFN wanted. The AFN also succeeded in getting the settlement administered by regional corporations directed by Alaska Natives. Earlier bills had called for the settlement to be overseen by the DOI or a statewide corporation managed by non-Native Alaskans. The state of Alaska also won concessions. Congressmen allowed it most of the better lands from which to select, while generally restricting Native selections to less valuable lands around the roughly two hundred Native villages. The biggest winner of land, however, was the Department of the Interior. The late efforts of conservationists won them an amendment that required the federal government to remove eighty million acres for study. DOI land selections took precedence over state or Alaska Native selections. Although the AFN voted to accept the final version, the settlement was criticized by some delegates who were unhappy that the sixty-million-acre version had not passed. But the loudest dissension came from the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA), who represented the sparsely populated north slope region occupied by the Inupiat (the Inuit of Northern Alaska). Because vast reservoirs of oil lay under their land, the Inupiat believed they were entitled to a larger share of the award than the per capita

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

198

Related Treaty Issues

distribution that became law. Opponents of ANCSA did not believe the AFN served their interests, and they especially opposed the inclusion of the populous Tlingit Nation, who rejected a recent and relatively small $7.2 million court award in favor of joining the statewide Native settlement.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) ANCSA was the offspring of President Richard Nixon’s developing self-determination policy, the old federal policy of termination, and an urgent need for oil companies and the state of Alaska to remove all aboriginal title. Authors of the settlement wanted a solution without “creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship” (43 U.S.C. § 1601b). But they left open the possibility of continued BIA programs and the issue of Alaska Native sovereignty. Alaska Natives gave up claims to nearly all of Alaska. In return, they received forty-four million acres, or about one-ninth of the state’s land, and about $1 billion in payment. An amount of $462.5 million was paid out of the U.S. Treasury, and about $500 million came from a 2 percent royalty from mineral development on federal and state lands. Benefits were generally restricted to people of onefourth degree or more of Alaska Native blood and/or who were recognized as Alaska Native by their village. The act created twelve regional corporations, each assigned to a regional area whose resources would be exploited for profit. A thirteenth regional corporation, awarded money but no land, was reserved for Alaska Natives who had moved out of state. Alaska Natives would administer the boards of directors (and thus run the corporations) and would benefit from stock dividends. Each beneficiary received one hundred shares of stock, which would be inalienable until 1991. The corporations could vote to issue new shares to allow for population growth and to prevent inheritance problems. The act also authorized the creation of around two hundred village corporations, which were to be operated under the supervision of the twelve regional corporations. Like the regional corporations, the village corporations were to be organized under Alaska state laws. The regional and village corporations would select the forty-four million acres from public lands (not already claimed by the state of Alaska, the U.S. Department of the Interior, municipalities, or private interests). The regional cor-

www.abc-clio.com

porations retained both surface and subsurface rights to land development, whereas the village corporations kept only surface rights. The language of ANCSA contained the most thorough extinction of aboriginal title of any U.S. treaty or legislative action dealing with indigenous people. The act extinguished all aboriginal title to land, submerged lands, inland water, or offshore water in Alaska based upon use and occupancy, including any hunting and fishing rights “that may exist.” It also nullified any previous federal, state, or foreign treaties or statutes that recognized aboriginal title. The act abolished all reservations (except the Annette Island Reserve) and transferred the land to the corporations. It repealed the allotment acts of 1887 and 1910.

The Aftermath of ANCSA Given the experimental nature and lack of precedent for the ANCSA, it should not be surprising that the act provided fertile ground for litigation. Some of the subsequent problems involved (1) federal agency interpretation of fuzzy provisions defining how the land and money were to be divided among the corporations; (2) the inalienability of stock, which allowed corporate mismanagement; and (3) the definitions of Alaska Native and Native village. The continuing evolution of ANCSA resulted in amendments in 1976, 1987, and 1998. Most of the Native corporations endured a rough start due to the slow pace of the land selection process and to special restrictions, including the inalienability of stock and the need to balance profits with traditional culture. On an operating basis, the twelve regional companies collectively lost much of their $962.5 million award, but special legislation allowed them to sell some of these losses to other companies as tax write-offs. Inept management was also a problem. In 1999, the Alaska legislature audited Alaska’s Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations (BSC) for oversight of the Native corporations. The audit revealed a number of deficiencies. Shareholders were misled by inadequate financial disclosure, and their complaints received insufficient attention. The auditors recommended BSC review of proxy materials before their transmission to shareholders, the creation of an independent watchdog group to protect shareholders, remedies for shareholders denied access to corporation records, and more detailed disclosure of compensation for officers and directors. Despite their shortcomings, the Native corporations remain vital to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

Alaska’s economy, contributing $2.5 billion in revenue and employing more than ten thousand workers (Adams 2002, 6). Their prospects will vary with government policies dealing with Alaska Natives and with prices of natural resources, including oil, coal, timber, and minerals. Native corporations have had minimal impact upon the conditions of villages, whose locations were determined by the subsistence needs of the Native inhabitants rather than the business needs of the corporations. Comparatively few corporate employees live in the villages and therefore do not contribute their wages to the village economies. Although the influx of federal anti-poverty money in the 1960s and 1970s and oil wealth in the 1980s added material wealth to the villages, social conditions among the inhabitants worsened. The mortality rate is more than three times the national average. Economically, the villages remain dependent on public-sector spending. Despite some growth in incomes and jobs during the 1980s, villages still have much smaller incomes and higher unemployment rates than the state as a whole. The poverty rate is 21 percent, compared to 6.8 percent for all Alaskan families. The depressed economic condition coincides with a mortality rate more than three times the national average and an alcohol-related death rate triple that of non-Native Alaskans. Alaska Natives constitute 32 percent of the prison population, although they represent only 16 percent of the state population. The murder rate is four times the national average (Alaska Natives Commission 1996).

Sovereignty and the Venetie Decision ANCSA failed to define a process satisfactory to Alaskan Natives of governing and regulating the lands obtained from the act. The settlement granted land titles in fee simple, which conveyed only ownership rights inherent in private property. Even so, many Alaskan Natives believed that the federal government would eventually recognize their nations as possessing the same form of limited sovereignty that allowed Indians of the lower forty-eight states to regulate their lands. In 1998, the Supreme Court decision in Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t (522 U.S. 1998, 520) proved otherwise. At issue was the right of the Native village of Venetie to tax a non-Native business located on its land. In 1987, the village sued to collect more than $160,000 levied against a construction company that had contracted with the State of Alaska to build a school in Venetie. The State of

www.abc-clio.com

199

Alaska, which would have had to pay the tax, claimed that the village had no jurisdiction. At issue was whether the ANCSA extinguished the Venetie community’s status as a dependent Indian community that encompassed a federal set-aside of land and federal supervision. In other words, was Venetie part of Indian country? After a Native victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Venetie. The Court stated that ANCSA revoked all reservations that had been set aside, and because the land had reverted to fee simple status with no restrictions on alienation, it no longer qualified as Indian country. Its interpretation of ANCSA emphasized the congressional declaration of policy statement (section 1601b), which called for a settlement “without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges or obligations, without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship.” The decision impacted all Alaska Natives who fell under ANCSA, because the act stipulated that the possession of their land was limited to fee simple ownership. Because they were not part of Indian country, their power to regulate activities within their boundaries was similar to that of a property owner rather than to that of a sovereign governing body. The decision left the Alaska Natives little legal basis for regulating wildlife within their borders, that task falling under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska and/or the federal government. The inability to tax nonNative businesses seriously cut the revenue of some village corporations. The ruling implied that the villages had no civil or criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians, which left a vacuum of law enforcement, as the nearest authorities were sometimes located at distances requiring one or two days’ travel.

Hawaii During the nineteenth century, the Kingdom of Hawaii approved more than thirty treaties with foreign nations. Its first treaty negotiated with the United States, in 1826, recognized Hawaii’s sovereignty and established trade relations. Although the island residents generally acknowledged the treaty, it was never ratified by the United States. As the Hawaiian Kingdom expanded its government and legal system to accommodate western demands, it negotiated treaties with members of the international community, including Great Britain, Japan, France, Samoa, and the United States. By 1850, the settlement of California and Oregon put

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

200

Related Treaty Issues

Hawaii firmly within the shadow of the United States. In 1875 and 1887, the Hawaiian Kingdom, strongly influenced by American businessmen, agreed to reciprocity treaties that allowed duty-free sugar into the United States. The resulting sugar boom led to a labor shortage and, shortly thereafter, an influx of Asian immigrants that doubled the population of the islands and reduced the Hawaiian component to less than 30 percent. In 1893, a coalition led by American businessmen and descendants of missionaries ousted the monarchy with the aid of the American consulate. Shortly afterward, the United States annexed Hawaii by a unilateral joint resolution of Congress rather than by treaty or agreement with the Native inhabitants. In 1993, Congress approved a resolution offering an apology for U.S. participation in the overthrow, acknowledging the lack of compensation for Native Hawaiians, and urging the executive branch to support reconciliation efforts between the American people and Native Hawaiians.

Early Treaties In 1826, the United States sent two warships captained by Thomas ap Catesby Jones to protect the property and businesses of American traders and to collect debts owed them by the rulers. Jones extracted an agreement to pay the debts and negotiated what would be Hawaii’s first commerce treaty. The treaty, which recognized Hawaiian sovereignty, contained provisions that included the protection of law-abiding Americans in Hawaii, the admission of American ships to Hawaiian ports, and reciprocal “most favored nation” status for import tariffs and trade privileges. This treaty, though never ratified by the United States, was generally recognized by both foreign and Native residents of the islands until it was replaced by the U.S. treaty of 1849. During the 1830s and 1840s, whaling ships and various businesses began to expand the ports of Honolulu and Lahaina. When businessmen found a lack of Western authority to support their financial or land claims, they turned to their nation’s diplomatic representatives, who contacted their governments for help. This period was marked by visits from a series of warships, which empowered their captains and consuls to settle most land claims and debts. On different occasions, foreign marines burned government buildings and heaped countless humiliations upon the Hawaiian government, which was headed by its monarch and a handful of devoted non-Native officials.

www.abc-clio.com

The one-sided treaties resulting from these visits made clear the need to establish a government that could cater to the demands of European economics and law. Native Hawaiian leaders turned to the American missionaries to help create such a government. Their combined efforts produced the Constitution of 1840, which incorporated the republican principle of popular representation, a significant departure from the traditional rule of the chiefs. Over the next decade, the new government formed the legal structure for the civil service, the judiciary, and land reform. In addition to promoting Western law, the Protestant missionaries encouraged religious intolerance. Persecution of the struggling Catholic movement by the chiefs and missionaries brought an expected reprisal from France. In July 1839, Captain C. P. T. Laplace arrived in Honolulu Harbor aboard the frigate L’Artemise. A summarized version of his demands included fair treatment of Catholics residing on the islands, compliance with a treaty written by French officials and favorable to the French, and a $20,000 bond to ensure Hawaiian compliance with the terms of the treaty. Under the threat of war, the king signed the document. The compact was the first of several lopsided treaties that would hamper the fledgling government’s economic and political influence for the next two decades. The kingdom’s ability to enforce criminal laws was now limited. Frenchmen accused of crimes had to be tried by a jury composed of foreigners who were approved by the French consul. Other nations demanded the same right. In the realm of commerce, the treaty barred Hawaii from forbidding the import of wines and spirituous liquor. This invasion of sovereignty effectively repealed the liquor prohibition instigated by the Protestant missionaries in their efforts to reduce alcohol abuse. The treaty forced the Hawaiian government to grant “most favored nation” status to imported French goods but not to grant similar status for Hawaiian products exported to France. The great powers often imposed this unequal provision during the imperialistic heyday of the nineteenth century. Shortly after the French seizure of the Marquesas Islands and Tahiti in 1842, many foreign residents believed that Britain or France would soon claim Hawaii. Not surprisingly, a British frigate captained by Lord George Paulet appeared in Honolulu Harbor ostensibly to protect property rights and collect debts owed to British subjects. His demands were backed by the threat of attack and included a

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

cession of land and reparations to the British consul, Richard Charlton, and the extension of British criminal law over British residents. The king reluctantly agreed to these deep impositions upon his sovereignty. When Paulet added new demands, including the overturning of recent court decisions and greatly increased indemnities, the Hawaiian government feared for its credibility. Believing that Paulet was determined to take the islands anyway, the king ceded them to Great Britain, hoping that a review by higher British officials would restore them to the Hawaiian crown. About six months later, Britain, respecting a joint accord with France supporting Hawaiian sovereignty, restored the kingdom but refused to pay for losses or damages caused by Paulet’s activities. In 1844, Hawaiian officials signed a convention similar to the French treaty with Great Britain. They again objected to provisions that limited the government’s ability to deal with rowdy foreigners. They also objected to a restriction of their sovereign ability to bar British imports. The first French and British treaties, although disagreeable to the Hawaiian ministers, did recognize the independence of the Hawaiian government. American residents, who felt bound by the more lenient treaty of 1826, wished to be granted rights similar to those granted by the French and British treaties. The king’s written assurances of these rights, however, dissuaded them from pursuing a similar treaty. After the British convention in 1844, the Hawaiian foreign minister, Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, began a quest for more balanced treaties. New British and French treaties signed in 1846 resembled earlier treaties but contained a small concession for alcoholic beverages that allowed the Hawaiian government import duties but not enough to significantly restrict their importation. Hawaiian officials wanted to restrict alcohol and shortly afterward submitted their own treaties to Great Britain and France, who rejected them. At this time, U.S. officials petitioned the Hawaiian government to open negotiations for a new treaty. The recent acquisition of California gave the United States a new presence in the Pacific region. But more urgent was a dispute involving a rape accusation against an American citizen, who was not allowed the benefit of a jury selected by his country’s consul. As this was a right enjoyed by British and French nationals, the resident U.S. consul, George Brown, accused Hawaiian officials of discrimination.

www.abc-clio.com

201

In 1846, U.S. Secretary of State James Buchanan instructed a new commissioner, Anthony Ten Eyck, to negotiate a treaty. He suggested using the existing British and French treaties as a guide. Instead, Ten Eyck submitted a treaty much harsher to Hawaiian interests. An angry British consul accused the United States of trying to make the islands a dependency. Among the terms Ten Eyck insisted upon was the right of the American consul to nominate juries for civil cases as well as criminal ones. Hawaiian officials objected vehemently. Later, Ten Eyck offered a document similar to the British treaty of 1846, but it was rejected due to resentment over its invasions of Hawaiian sovereignty and, perhaps, Ten Eyck’s offensive behavior when he clamored for American interests. Hawaiian animosity rose to the point that officials refused to recognize him as the American consul. Upon learning of Ten Eyck’s failure to obtain a treaty and of alleged French ambitions in the islands, the new secretary of state, John M. Clayton, determined that the concerns of the monarchy and those of the American commercial interests were similar. In late 1849, Hawaiian and American officials in Washington signed a treaty that Hawaiians found more to their liking. Although it contained a few concessions for American whaling ships, it eliminated most of the offensive economic and criminal justice provisions of the British and French treaties. After their troublesome encounters with Paulet and Laplace, Hawaiian ministers concluded that they must reorganize their government to fit a western model, or a foreign power would install its own administration. To conform to foreigners’ demands for a fee simple system of land ownership, the king, the chiefs, and the government reluctantly agreed to a land division among themselves in 1848, which became known as the Great Mahele. Each group was given fee simple title to roughly a third of the lands. The hopes of missionaries and other foreigners to convert common Hawaiians (makaainana) into independent family farmers resulted in kuleana grants, authorized by the government in 1849. The kuleanas, typically small plots of fertile, irrigated land, were used by the commoners to grow taro, a staple Hawaiian crop. In 1850, after much debate, the legislature passed a law allowing foreigners to own land. This law, opposed by many Hawaiians, was forced by fears of a French takeover or an overthrow instigated by California “filibusters” and by local planters who were eager to export sugar to rapidly growing markets on the West Coast. Within

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

202

Related Treaty Issues

two decades, foreigners gained what they sought, the most desirable Hawaiian farm lands, with fee simple titles. Fears of a French takeover intensified in 1848 following the arrival of French foreign consul, G. P. Dillon, presumably to settle French grievances. His list of demands included the lowering of import duties on alcoholic beverages and the repeal of laws that required customs-house documents to be printed in either English or Hawaiian. Dillon believed the requirement discriminated against the French language. Inadequate response from the Hawaiian government brought two French warships captained by Admiral Legoarant de Tromelin to Honolulu Harbor. After further negotiations proved unsatisfactory, French soldiers marched ashore and occupied the government buildings and the fort. They also confiscated the king’s schooner, the Kamehameha, to ensure compliance with their demands. Government ministers and American residents feared the French would seize the islands despite the U.S. treaty in 1849 that supported Hawaiian sovereignty. Anxious officials sent Dr. Judd to Washington, Paris, and London to seek support for the Hawaiian government. In the event of armed invasion by the French, the king resolved to put the islands under American protection. In Paris, Judd sought a political compromise, financial compensation for the ship Kamehameha, and damages for government property. French officials would not budge. Later, in Washington, Judd received further assurances of American support. The impasse lasted for nearly two years, during which American influence grew on the islands and on the U.S. West Coast. In 1851, France gave up any designs it may have held for the islands and agreed to a compromise.

Reciprocity with the United States The efforts of Native Hawaiians and some haoles (non-Hawaiians) to preserve Hawaiian sovereignty met further hardship during the 1850s. European diseases continued to shrink the Native Hawaiian population. The major revenue source for the islands, the whaling industry, leveled off and started to decline, seriously threatening the economy. Planters understood the potential for agriculture, particularly sugar, but were discouraged by high foreign tariffs and a labor shortage. In 1855, the recent shift of power in the north Pacific toward Washington led to the refusal of the United States to endorse a joint protectorate with Great Britain and France that guaranteed Hawaii’s independence. The United

www.abc-clio.com

States emerged as a new and more potent threat to Hawaiian sovereignty. Under these conditions, the business and foreign communities sought annexation with the United States, but their efforts failed to survive the objection of Kamehameha IV. In 1855, the king and business interests sought a reciprocity treaty that would allow Hawaii to export sugar and other agricultural products into the United States duty free. Opponents in Congress, at the behest of sugar planters in the South and wool interests in Vermont, defeated the treaty. Some feared that cheap sugar from the Philippines or China could be smuggled into the United States through Hawaii. In 1866, the arrival of a pro-reciprocity U.S. minister, coupled with the continued stagnation of Hawaiian agriculture, encouraged high government officials to renew their efforts to attain a reciprocity treaty. U.S. Secretary of State William Seward supported the treaty, but he and other advocates faced a Congress preoccupied with Reconstruction. Opponents of reciprocity saw no need to fatten Hawaiian sugar planters at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. The argument that economic ties were needed to increase American influence in the islands fell upon deaf ears. According to a leading opponent, Senator William Fessenden of Maine, U.S. influence was already “sufficient to assure the concessions of whatever naval and commercial privileges are needed in the islands . . .” (Kuykendall 1953, 220), and American capital was needed at home. Some annexation supporters in the United States also opposed the treaty. They hoped that sugar planters, already in desperate condition, would rally Hawaiian support for annexation should reciprocity fail to pass Congress. Other annexationists in the United States supported reciprocity, believing that American interests were not yet strong enough to procure the islands without the use of force. They preferred to further strengthen economic ties, believing that an influx of American businessmen and capital would eventually lead to American control of the government. The next economic depression in Hawaii (perhaps caused by nonrenewal of the prospective reciprocity treaty) would lead this enlarged American group to clamor for the security of annexation. A similar scenario would gradually unfold and then climax with the destruction of the monarchy forty years later. Foreigners and haoles feverishly debated annexation in the latter 1860s. To planters, annexation offered a permanent solution to their export prob-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

lems instead of the temporary seven years specified by the prospective reciprocity treaty. They also saw the Hawaii Constitution of 1864 as dictatorial and did not like the ministers Hawaiian sovereigns chose to help run the government. Native Hawaiians, still the vast majority on the islands, also suffered a loss of rights under the constitution but remained patriotic to the king and would not support annexation. In 1870, the decline of whaling and the lack of markets for agricultural products continued to depress the economy and worry Hawaiian officials. Some observers in the United States feared a revolution if a reciprocity treaty could not be obtained or if a peaceful succession for the ailing and childless King Kamehameha V did not occur. The British commissioner wrote, “There is a great feeling of insecurity lest the King himself in a moment of weakness should be persuaded to sell his throne” (Kuykendall 1953, 247). When Kamehameha V died in late 1872, two American warships remained in Honolulu Harbor to keep peace during the election of King Lunalilo. A year later, Lunalilo’s death without a successor opened a struggle between dowager Queen Emma, an opponent of reciprocity and a favorite of traditional Hawaiians, and David Kalakaua, a strong advocate of Hawaiian independence who saw cooperation with foreigners as a way to achieve that end. The presence of three foreign warships in Honolulu Harbor served as a stabilizing influence during the election of Kalakaua but did not prevent rioting by Queen Emma’s supporters afterward. King Kalakaua’s well-publicized and successful tour of the United States in 1875 reopened treaty negotiations. His delegation warned the State Department that, if a treaty could not be negotiated, Hawaii would turn to Great Britain, New Zealand, or Australia. Reciprocity with Hawaii continued to face staunch opposition from special interest groups in the United States. Sugar plantations in the South could not produce sugar as cheaply, East Coast sugar refiners did not wish to compete with West Coast refiners fed by cheap Hawaiian sugar, and labor advocates condemned the terrible working conditions of Asian contract labor. Other opponents abhorred the idea of enriching Hawaiian planters and West Coast refiners at the expense of the federal government. Nor was the treaty universally popular in Hawaii. The British faction correctly feared that the government would raise duties on British imported goods to make up for the loss of tax revenue result-

www.abc-clio.com

203

ing from American reciprocity. The most important opposition came from Native Hawaiians led by Queen Emma, who feared the loss of sovereignty, as a sugar boom would surely attract more foreigners. Even King Kalakaua feared the growing American influence and sought assurance from the British consul that Britain would support the monarchy in the event of an insurrection led by resident American annexationists. Treaty proponents in Congress pointed to the location of the islands in the central Pacific as an economic gateway to Asia. Expanded commercial ties would bring Hawaii further within America’s sphere of influence. At this time, many of the proponents sought not eventual annexation but rather an extension of the Monroe Doctrine. The reciprocity initiative proved successful; the treaty was ratified by Congress and went into effect September 9, 1876. The agreement provided for the duty-free exchange of agricultural goods (most notably sugar), basic materials, and manufactured items between the two countries. It also limited Hawaiian sovereignty by restricting the nation from leasing any of its harbors or by agreeing to reciprocity with any other foreign power. Its ultimate impact upon the sugar industry was enormous; acreage planted in sugar increased tenfold between 1874 and 1898.

Conflict between the Hawaiian Government and the Business Community During the 1880s, Honolulu businessmen and the foreign community increasingly railed against government corruption. Many believed that King Kalakaua’s government paid too little attention to the constitution, employed sycophants in the civil service, packed the legislature, and was bankrupting the kingdom. The king also balked at ceding Pearl Harbor to the United States in return for a renewal of the reciprocity treaty. Discontented businessmen, led mostly by descendants of Protestant missionaries, formed the Hawaiian League, which numbered four hundred by 1887. They engaged the services of the Honolulu Rifles, an all-white, volunteer militia, which, according to historian Gavan Daws, was the “only well-organized military company” in Hawaii (Daws 1968, 246). Backed by the U.S. minister and the Honolulu Rifles, the league forced King Kalakaua to consent to a new cabinet, composed of league members, and a new constitution in which his authority was reduced greatly. The Bayonet Constitution, as it was called, removed certain voting

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

204

Related Treaty Issues

rights of most Native Hawaiians and extended the franchise to most foreigners. The constitution never achieved ratification by popular vote. In 1891, U.S. President Benjamin Harrison signed into law the McKinley Act, which eliminated tariffs from sugar imported into the United States and subsidized sugar grown domestically. As American purchasers could now buy sugar cheaper in certain other countries than in Hawaii, the act effectively nullified the reciprocity treaty and led to an economic depression in the islands. The following year, the slowdown began to exact a severe toll upon the government, which faced declining tax revenues and demands that it stimulate the economy. The legislative session in 1892, the longest on record, was marked by quarrels among haoles, Native Hawaiians, several political groups, and Queen Liliuokalani, who still possessed veto power over bills that failed to pass by a twothirds majority. The queen ultimately won passage of two controversial bills, a lottery act and an opium licensing act, which she hoped would raise government revenues. The most visible aspect of the conflict between Liliuokalani and the business community was the legislative struggle for control of the queen’s cabinet. The Constitution of 1887 left the sovereign monarch the right to choose a cabinet but allowed the legislature, with sufficient votes, to disband it. In 1892, members of the legislature voted on seven noconfidence motions, four of which succeeded. On each occasion, the queen simply appointed a new cabinet.

The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Government Most foreigners and haoles greatly feared Queen Liliuokalani’s support of a new constitution that would restore power to the monarchy and voting rights to Native Hawaiians. In early January 1893, when it appeared that the queen was planning to proclaim such a constitution, a handful of insurrectionists created the Committee of Public Safety, the purpose of which was to eliminate the monarchy and then to create a provisional government that would exist until annexation with the United States could be achieved. They appealed to the U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, for military protection. Stevens, a rabid expansionist, obliged. On January 16, he arranged for approximately 160 well-armed troops to march through the streets of Honolulu to a town hall located across the street from the government building and in sight of the queen’s palace.

www.abc-clio.com

Although the Hawaiian foreign minister protested their presence to Stevens, the public remained unaware of the troops’ motives. Under the protection of American guns, members of the Committee for Public Safety read a statement on the steps of the government building. Attracting a small gathering of spectators, the committee declared the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a provisional government. Stevens immediately recognized the new government, even though it was a paper entity having no control over the government bureaucracy, including the treasury, archives, or police. He also ignored the wishes of Native Hawaiians, nearly all of whom staunchly opposed a proannexation government. Queen Liliuokalani yielded power “to the superior force of the United States of America” only after being informed that Stevens supported the provisional government. To prevent loss of life and to avoid diplomatic questions involved in firing on American troops, she surrendered under protest and in the belief that higher American authorities would reinstate her later. The committee worked quickly. Several members rushed to Washington, compiled an annexation treaty with the help of the outgoing William Henry Harrison administration, and submitted it to the Senate a month later. The treaty emphatically stated that the United States had played no part in the overthrow of the monarchy. Because this and other annexationist claims contradicted the queen’s story, incoming president Grover Cleveland withdrew the treaty and sent Congressman James H. Blount of Georgia to investigate the revolt. Blount’s report detailed a deliberate conspiracy between Stevens and annexationist planters and businessmen to overthrow the kingdom. Blount found that the troops were landed not to guard American life and property but to assist in removing the existing government. Cleveland withdrew the treaty. Stevens was replaced by Albert Willis, who, in accordance with instructions from Cleveland, offered to restore the throne on the condition that amnesty be given to the conspirators. At first, the queen refused, believing they should be subject to Hawaiian law and punished, but a month later she relented. By this time, Cleveland had submitted the restoration question to a hostile Congress, a move that undoubtedly strengthened the provisional government. When Willis asked the provisional government to step down, its officers refused, claiming the president lacked the authority to intervene in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

Hawaii’s internal affairs. Cleveland was not inclined to force the matter, given the strength of the annexationists in Congress. In early 1894, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its own hearings in Washington and afterward issued the Morgan Report, which cleared Stevens and the marines of any moral improprieties.

Annexation Expecting that Hawaii would not be annexed during Cleveland’s term, in mid-1894 leaders of the provisional government declared a constitutional republic with Sanford Dole as its president. A year later, Robert Wilcox, a mixed-blood Hawaiian, led an unsuccessful rebellion in which authorities arrested Queen Liliuokalani for her alleged involvement. The new government forced her to sign a statement abdicating her throne in exchange for reducing the punishment of Wilcox and other conspirators. With the ascension of pro-annexation William McKinley to the presidency in 1898, expansionists again brought a Hawaii annexation treaty before Congress. The queen issued a formal protest, stating that the treaty ignored (1) the Blount report; (2) the wishes of Native Hawaiians (who at that time numbered about forty thousand, compared to the three thousand foreigners who supported the revolt); (3) compensation for lands ceded to the United States; (4) all previous treaties between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (5) the violation of international law. More than thirty thousand Native Hawaiians signed a petition opposing the treaty. Some congressmen were undoubtedly moved by the protest and recent publicity citing the bad treatment of American Indians. The treaty failed to attain the two-thirds majority required to pass the Senate. But annexationists reintroduced the measure as a joint resolution (the Newlands Resolution), which required only a simple majority. The resolution passed and was signed into law. It scrapped all existing treaties of the Hawaiian republic and placed the new territory under the coverage of U.S. treaties. It also transferred to the United States lands belonging to the Hawaiian Crown and government and all rights of sovereignty. Use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty to annex Hawaii was considered unconstitutional by some congressmen. But annexationists pointed to the Republic of Texas, which had been annexed by joint resolution, as sufficient precedent. However, the residents of Texas had clearly stated their preference for annexation at the polls. The large number of

www.abc-clio.com

205

signatures protesting Hawaiian annexation provided strong evidence to the contrary for Hawaii. Congress established a territorial government by passage of the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900. The new government preserved most of the laws enacted under the old kingdom, including the recognition of Hawaiian tradition and custom and limited land rights. Except for land used for military purposes, the 1.8 million acres of Crown and government lands obtained by the Newlands Resolution were placed under control of the territorial government. The end of the kingdom was a direct result of U.S. policy as reflected in its treaties with Hawaii. The last two treaties, the reciprocity of 1875 and the extension of reciprocity in 1884, created a tidal wave of American capital and Asian immigrants. As Native Hawaiian groups had feared, the reciprocity period (1876–1900) saw a drastic decline in the Native Hawaiian population as a percent of the total. In 1876, the population of the islands numbered 55,000, of which 89.2 percent were Hawaiian. By 1900, immigration for plantation labor had swelled the number to 154,000, of which Hawaiians constituted 26 percent. This shrinking percentage, along with the widespread belief that Native Hawaiians would become extinct, inevitably undermined the foreign community’s support for what they considered an expensive and inefficient monarchy. After annexation, the major forum for Native Hawaiians to regain their rights, land, and sovereignty would be the U.S. legal system.

The Aftermath of Annexation In 1910, Queen Liliuokalani sued the United States for the return of the Crown lands. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the lands were originally part of the public lands of the kingdom, not the queen’s private property. The court relied on a case in 1864, In re Estate of Kamehameha IV (2 Haw. 1864, 715), which held that the king’s land was not his private property but “belonged to the chiefs and people in common.” After annexation, the population and welfare of Native Hawaiians continued to deteriorate. Numbering an estimated 300,000 at the time of Cook’s visit in 1778, the population of full-blood Hawaiians had dwindled to 23,723 by 1920. Soon after annexation, advocates for Native Hawaiian rights led by Kuhio Kalaniana’ole, Hawaii Territory’s delegate to Congress, started lobbying Congress to restore some of the ceded lands (former Crown and government

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

206

Related Treaty Issues

lands) to Native Hawaiian ownership. They obtained some leverage in 1910, when certain land provisions of the Hawaiian Organic Act were amended to encourage homesteaders at the expense of sugar growers. In 1921, a compromise that granted sugar interests the best agricultural lands allowed the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The act removed from the ceded lands about 200,000 acres, to be held in trust for Native Hawaiians who wished to homestead. Advocates hoped that the relocation of Native Hawaiians to the land as independent family farmers would save them from extinction as a race. This ideology supported the distribution of kuleanas seventy years earlier and, for Native Americans, the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes in the 1830s. The 200,000 acres were poor lands; most of the land lacked water for irrigation, and nearly onethird was either barren lava or steep mountain slope. Native Hawaiians saw little satisfaction in the administration of the land trust, first by the territory and later by the state. Lack of federal and state funding to oversee the program, to settle Hawaiians on the land, and to provide water forced administrators to collect revenue by leasing the lands. Some of the original 200,000 acres were transferred to various government agencies, mostly the military. Native Hawaiians were kept on a long waiting list, which by 1998 totaled 7,503 persons. By this time, about 20 percent of the trust lands had been homesteaded. In 1959, the State of Hawaii, as a condition of its admission to the Union, agreed to take control of the ceded lands from the federal government and to lease them under a public land trust for five specific uses, including public education, the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, and the increase of home and farm ownership. From 1959 until 1978, the state allocated most of the money to public education. In 1978, the state held a constitutional convention in which its trust obligation to Native Hawaiians was further clarified. The convention established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), a new state agency to lobby for Native Hawaiians and improve their conditions. The agency would receive funds, land, and resources held in trust for or intended for use by Native Hawaiians. Controlled by a board of trustees consisting of at least nine Native Hawaiians, it would allocate those assets and formulate policy for Native Hawaiians.

www.abc-clio.com

Authorizing such an agency was one thing, but funding it was another. Following the initiative of the constitutional convention, two years later the legislature specified a funding source of 20 percent of all funds derived from the ceded lands. This act proved difficult to enforce and thus formed the foundation for uncertainty and litigation that has yet to be resolved. In 1983, the OHA sued the state of Hawaii for its share of revenue from sand mining, the Honolulu International Airport, harbors, and other uses of ceded lands. Four years later, the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case, essentially saying that the 20 percent revenue provision was too vague for court interpretation and that such funding needed further legislative definition. In 1990, the legislature responded with Act 304, which again stated that “twenty percent of all revenues derived from the public land trust shall be expended by [OHA] for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians.” The act defined “revenues” to include rents, charges, and fees from the use of the ceded lands. As a result, the state and the OHA negotiated a settlement for $130 million for claims dated between 1980 and 1991. In 1994, OHA sued to settle claims for past revenue from other sources, including the Waikiki dutyfree shop, public housing, and the Hilo Hospital. In spite of public outcries that the potential liabilities could bankrupt the state, the state district court ruled in favor of the OHA. The state appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Shortly afterward, the U.S. Department of Transportation threw opponents of Act 304 what would soon become a legal life raft. Department officials determined that state payments to OHA violated a federal law, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. This act required all monies collected by owners from airport sources to be used for airport development, not to fund other projects. One implication of the ruling was that the state would have to find another source of money to pay OHA for airport use. In further negotiations, the state offered $250 million and revenue-producing lands, but OHA trustees rejected the offer. In September 2001, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, reversing the district court. The judges decided that the revenue provision of Act 304 directly conflicted with federal law. As the legislators had written the act as nonseverable, the court ruled the act vacated. The court did acknowl-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

edge the state’s obligation to Native Hawaiians and exhorted the legislature to see that they benefited from the ceded lands trust.

The Sovereignty Movement Coinciding with Indian and Alaska Native activism in the 1960s and 1970s, Native Hawaiians formed various nationalistic organizations focusing on numerous issues such as Native land rights threatened by intensive development of the islands, reform of the Hawaiian Homelands program, Native access to beaches and trails, ceded land disputes, desecration of burial grounds, and the desecration of the volcano goddess Pele by drilling geothermal wells in the Kilauea volcano. In the mid-1980s, Native Hawaiians stepped up their efforts to receive federal recognition as a sovereign nation, similar to the recognition received by more than five hundred Indian and Alaskan Native groups. Hawaiian activists formed numerous sovereignty and self-determination groups; some of the largest include Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry (ALOHA), Hui Ala Loa, and Kingdom of Hawai’i. Enactment of a congressional joint resolution (107 Stat. 1510) in 1993 apologizing for the overthrow of the monarchy marked a major milestone for the sovereignty movement. The apology acknowledged that the Kingdom of Hawaii had been an independent nation, to which the United States had extended “full and complete diplomatic recognition” and with which the United States had entered into several treaties. Congress admitted the illegality of the overthrow and the contribution of the United States to it. The significance of the joint resolution lay in its recognition that Native Hawaiians had never relinquished sovereignty over their lands, a point that could be vital for future litigation. Also important, it urged the president to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. As part of the reconciliation process, the U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice, at the request of Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Akaka, held hearings with Native Hawaiians to determine direction and consensus. Their report recommended that Native Hawaiians, through congressional action, should possess limited sovereignty within the framework of federal law, as do Native American tribes. The United States should recognize a Native Hawaiian governing body similar to those of Native Ameri-

www.abc-clio.com

207

can tribes in order to initiate a government-togovernment relationship. The largest and best-funded Hawaiian governing body at that time was the OHA. But the ability of the OHA to act as a legitimate government was crippled in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rice v. Cayetano (528 U.S. 2000, 495), which held that the state law restricting the election and membership of OHA trustees to Native Hawaiians was unconstitutional. By expanding the electorate and elected trustees to include non-Native Hawaiians, the decision negated the credibility of OHA and its effectiveness as a Native Hawaiian representative body. The decision left open the possibility of a congressional solution, that of bringing OHA and other Hawaiian programs under federal supervision. Such an approach has since been proposed in Congress but has yet to pass. Linda S. Parker

References and Further Reading Adams, Jacob. 2002. “Native Lands Key Factor in State’s Growth.” Resource Review Newsletter (August): 6. Alaska Natives Commission. 1994. Final Report. Vol 1: Healing Harmony Hope. 3 vols. Anchorage: Alaska Natives Commission. Andrade, Ernest. 1996. Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880–1903. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Berger, Thomas R. 1995. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. Rev. ed. New York: Hill and Wang. Case, David. 1984. Alaska Natives and American Laws. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Daws, Gavan. 1968. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Dudley, Michael, and Kenoni Agard. 1990. A Call for Hawaiian Sovereignty. Honolulu: Na Kane O Ka Malo Press. Kuykendall, Ralph. 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol. 1, 1778–1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Kuykendall, Ralph. 1953. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol. 2, 1854–1974, Twenty Critical Years. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Kuykendall, Ralph. 1967. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol. 3, 1874–1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Lililuokalani. 1898. Hawaii’s Story: By Hawaii’s Queen. Boston: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard. McClanahan, Alexandra. 2000. Growing Up Native in Alaska. Anchorage: AK: The Ciri Foundation.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

208

Related Treaty Issues

Merry, Sally. 2000. Colonizing Hawaii: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mitchell, Donald. 1997. Sold American: The Story of Alaska Natives and Their Land, 1867–1959. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Mitchell, Donald. 2001. Take My Land, Take My Life: The Story of Congress’s Historic Settlement of Alaska Native Claims, 1960–1971. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Osorio, Jonathan. 2002. Dismembering Lahui: A History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Parker, Linda. 1989. Native American Estate: The Struggle over Indian and Hawaiian Lands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Tate, Merze. 1965. The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tate, Merze. 1968. Hawaii: Reciprocity or Annexation. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. U.S. Department of State. 1895. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States for 1894. Appendix 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

II

Introduction n what is now called Canada, treaty making has been the primary means of fostering colonization since the 1600s. Although it has been the cornerstone of the largely peaceful Indian-settler relationship for the past four centuries, its enduring benefits have been overwhelmingly one sided. Treaty making was the approach preferred by the First Nations as well as the European parties to sort out the essential terms of how colonists and their governments would relate to the original owners of the land throughout most of North America. The history of negotiating treaties, their political and legal significance up to the present day, and the many disputes that continue to arise regarding their meaning create a situation that is, however, markedly different from that found in the United States. Understanding the place of treaties in modern Canada is possible only through a full appreciation of the different types of treaties signed over the years, the history of treaty formation, and the evolving legal importance that treaties have acquired more recently. One must also recognize that Indian perspectives on the function of treaties and the precise rights they contain have differed dramatically from the views held by Canadian governments over the intervening decades, and that considerable conflict, disappointment, anger, and frustration have been the result. Recent judicial interpretations, along with the entrenchment of the protection of treaty rights in Canada’s constitution in 1982 [Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”], have resurrected the importance of historic Indian treaties as well as the necessity for new treaties to be negotiated with Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples. The Inuit (still called Eskimos by many in the United States) did not share the precontact treaty-making tradition, nor was their interaction with newcomers regulated in this fashion. The Métis—reflecting the emergence of a new people springing from the merger, then reformulation, of both European and Indian cultures and origins—were often shunted aside during treaty negotiations. Occasionally, the Métis were included within the scope of Crown-Indian treaties as individ-

ual beneficiaries or as communities adhering to its terms rather than through separate agreements. Both Inuit and Métis peoples have adopted the treaty model in recent years to develop major land claim settlements and new governance arrangements within Canada. France was the first significant colonizing presence from Europe; it also sought peaceful trading relationships with the Indian nations and negotiated some treaties to encourage such opportunities. The displacement of the French regime from the Maritimes in 1713 and from Quebec in 1763 by Great Britain meant that the latter’s legal system and emphasis on treaties has dominated the experience throughout North America. As both Canada and the United States were established predominantly as British colonies, with the same common-law legal system and the same initial approach to dealing with the Indian nations encountered by European settlers, it is not surprising that both countries today share many common perceptions of treaty relationships. American case law, with its far greater volume and earlier vintage, has had considerable influence on the development of Canadian thinking in this regard. In fact, some of the earliest treaties relating to Indian nations resident in Canada were actually negotiated in the American colonies, particularly in Boston. The border between the two countries also bisects the traditional territory of various Indian nations from coast to coast to coast. The content of the common law and official government policy of Great Britain in the 1600s were both shaped largely by the emerging international law doctrines first enunciated by Spanish theologians and legal thinkers, especially Francisco de Vitoria, and within the Roman Catholic Church in the mid-sixteenth century. After extensive debate and a period of controversy, international law came to recognize the indigenous peoples of the so-called New World as human beings with souls who were entitled to respect and to protection from physical violence. The developing theory of international law also recognized them as “peoples,” who constituted sovereign nations with ownership rights over their territories. Even though Europeans did not appreciate it at the time of contact, indigenous states practiced treaty making extensively before they ever encoun-

209 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

210

Related Treaty Issues

tered people from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. A wide variety of treaty relationships existed among many of the Indian nations in North America, in some places extending over immense distances. Trading of natural resources and produced goods could occur over thousands of miles. Military alliances also were forged in opposition to common enemies, and military conflict was frequently resolved through the creation of new peace and friendship commitments accompanied by solemn treaty promises. From the perspective of Indian nations, turning to the institution of treaties as the primary peaceful method for dealing with newcomers was logical— the only alternatives were war or complete avoidance of contact, both of which were also pursued at various locales and times. However, the flood of migrants from overseas, coupled with their attractive trade goods, quickly led the Indian nations along the Atlantic coast to conclude that peaceful relations were the preferred choice. Likewise, from the European perspective, treaties were a logical device to regulate future relationships, as that was how Europeans themselves attempted to organize their own internal relationships among competing states. Treaty making, therefore, worked well as a common vehicle for both sides to pursue the establishment of new relations based upon clear understandings. Each party was able to pursue its separate interests within a shared construct. The pure act of negotiating out of self-interest brought together leading representatives in a context of equal status with the common objective of reaching agreement. Treaties became the best way to cement a relationship inspired by desires for peace and friendship, to encourage trading patterns that were economically beneficial to both sides, and to create potentially powerful military alliances against common enemies, be they other European colonial powers or Indian nations. It should be understood that control over treaty making on the European side rested exclusively with the empire. That is, the imperial government possessed the sole prerogative to decide when to negotiate new treaties, with whom to seek such relationships, and on what terms. Only the Crown could appoint representatives with a mandate to bind the government. The people on the ground—the colonists—could enter into private contracts of trade, but they had no authority whatsoever as private individuals or as communities to negotiate for-

www.abc-clio.com

mal treaties or to acquire land directly from Indian nations. The individual Indian nation that occupied particular territory was viewed as the rightful owner of that soil in accordance with the terms of its own rules or laws. According to those laws, land was usually held with collective or communal title and could not be individually conveyed or sold. This meant that the “discovering” European nation could not claim exclusive title to the “new” lands but merely the sole right, vis-à-vis other European countries, to enter into treaty relations regarding trade and military alliances or to acquire land for settlement from a willing Indian nation. International law did, however, recognize a principle of conquest such that a victor in war obtained the legal right to seize territory and substitute its sovereignty for that of the defeated nation. Local law would remain in force, however, until the conqueror chose to impose any changes, including a decision to establish new governments.

The Evolution of Treaty Making in Canada Canada has experienced four distinct eras in which treaties were negotiated: (1) from the earliest days of contact to the American Revolution, (2) from 1790 to independence in 1867, (3) from 1867 to 1930, and (4) the modern era, from 1975 to the present. Each period is considered in turn.

Peace and Friendship Treaties The primary focal points of treaty relations in the 1600s and 1700s—and of international or intergovernmental relationships in general among Europeans and Indian nations at this time—were on trade, military alliances, and peaceful interaction so as to permit colonies to flourish and to generate maximum economic wealth for the mother countries. Early agreements often involved some small land conveyances by the Indian partners for trading posts, military forts, and modest colonial settlements while also establishing a pattern of gift giving on the part of the Crown. The offering of presents, which was to become a common element in almost all later treaties, made sense to Europeans as well as to indigenous peoples in the Americas, as each was accustomed to presenting tokens of esteem and recognition on formal occasions. Nevertheless, the clear majority of the gifts presented came from the European emissaries.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

The first formal treaty between the British Crown and the Iroquois Confederacy, the Treaty of Albany of September 24, 1664—also known as the Two Row Wampum—typifies a number of these elements. The Iroquois, then consisting of five distinct nations but later increasing to six when the Tuscarora Nation joined the Confederacy early in the eighteenth century, were a major military force and far more numerous than the British in the region. They had previously been allies of the Dutch, who transferred their interest in New Netherlands (renamed New York) to the British in 1664. The Iroquois were also long-standing adversaries of the Huron Nation, who had previously forged an alliance with the French colony of New France in the St. Lawrence River valley that included the provision of rifles. Treaty negotiations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the British representatives extended over several days, resulting in separate agreements on September 24 and 25 that consisted of the following key elements: 1. “[T]hat the Indian Princes above named and their subjects, shall have all such wares and commodities from the English for the future, as heretofore they had from the Dutch.” 2. Each party pledged to capture and punish any fugitive committing any injury or violence to a person under the other’s protection so that all due satisfaction would be given to the victim. 3. The English were mandated to “make peace for the Indian Princes, with the Nations down the River.” 4. The English promised not to assist the three nations of the Abenaki Confederacy and to provide accommodation to the Iroquois if they should be beaten by those nations. (O’Callaghan 1853–61:3, 67–68) The treaty was recorded in English, and an official version on parchment was given to the Iroquois. The treaty was also recorded on a wampum belt, which was delivered to Colonel George Cartwright (on behalf of the Duke of York). The Iroquois method of recording the significance of important events involved the sewing together of beads made from seashells on animal skins in pictorial patterns unique to that particular event. Thus, each party followed its traditional practice of acknowledging the importance of this historic and solemn occasion in a manner that reflected its culture while making

www.abc-clio.com

211

mutual assurances to honor in perpetuity the promises made. Treaty making was rapidly adopted as the preferred strategy of Great Britain, as it expanded Great Britain’s colonial and trading empire either through being welcomed by Indian nations into their territory or through acquiring the European claims of its predecessors. A number of treaties were negotiated with the Wabanaki Confederacy (the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, Penobscot, and Passamaquoddy Nations), in northern New England and the Maritime colonies from 1678 until 1761. These treaties often followed political withdrawals by the Wabanaki’s former ally, France. Their purpose, more generally, was the commitment of both partners to peaceful and friendly relations, to exclusivity in trade, to nonmolestation of each other’s citizens, to respect for criminal and civil jurisdiction, to the release of prisoners, and to the refusal to aid deserters. The early success of the treaty mechanism (and the absence of an economically and politically attractive alternative) caused it to be used over and over again to meet immediate needs as well as for longer-term objectives, including the end of any hostilities that may have arisen, so as to restore peace and foster trade. Treaties were negotiated by Britain all along the Atlantic seaboard, from Georgia to Nova Scotia and as far west as the Appalachian Mountain range, from 1664 to the end of the American Revolution. The emphasis upon England retaining control and the importance of treaty making overall to imperial strategy was later confirmed by the Royal Proclamation issued by King George III on October 7, 1763, after the Seven Years’ War between France and Great Britain ended through the Treaty of Versailles. One major objective was to create new colonial governments for the former French colonies (in what later became the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island) as well as for the former Spanish colony of Florida. The Royal Proclamation also sought to confirm the position of Indian nations by declaring that they were to be left unmolested by colonists in their remaining territories inside of the British colonies unless they were willing to sell their lands to properly appointed Crown representatives, who would negotiate the purchase through public meetings resulting in formal treaty arrangements. Outside the colonial borders, largely to the west of the Appalachian Mountains, was expressly confirmed by the king as preserved as Indian country for their continued exclusive use.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

212

Related Treaty Issues

American Independence to Canadian Independence The American Revolution quickly changed everything both for the United States and for Canada. The land demands of colonists had been one of the driving forces underlying the American Revolution; hence the desires of land speculators—including George Washington, military veterans, and others in search of farmland—were able to flourish without the imperial constraints that previously had required the colonies’ adherence to treaty promises and had restricted treaty making to the Crown. Although some Indian nations joined with those rebelling and others remained neutral, many tribes had honored their military alliance with the British and were now on the losing side without the continuing protection of the Crown or the existence of prior treaties. The birth of the new country meant, of course, that all residents needed to decide for themselves where their future lay. Many colonists who had remained loyal to the Crown, the so-called United Empire Loyalists (or UELs), chose to flee the United States and move to what remained of British North America, namely, Canada. They suddenly needed massive quantities of land on which to resettle, a factor that immediately changed the pattern of the prior Indian-Crown relationship on the Canadian side of the border, where colonial settlement had been limited. The American victory also encouraged a major relocation of many tribes from the eastern coast of the new United States; these Indians moved westward and, in some cases, fled northward into Canada along with the UELs. Although victorious, the United States was an extremely vulnerable country, its economy in tatters and the solidity of its success in the Revolution uncertain, with no guarantee against future British invasion. The French Revolution, which occurred only a few years later, provided some political comfort but effectively robbed the United States of its major European ally. Thus, the United States wanted to create peaceful relations with outside powers and to stabilize its domestic situation. To meet these objectives, it wisely sought to inherit the benefits of the treaty relationships possessed by the British within American territory and to form new ones. The United States could not merely succeed to existing British treaties, because they stemmed from the defeated empire; the young country had to form new relationships of its own, which began with the Treaties of Hopewell with the Cherokee, Choctaw,

www.abc-clio.com

and Chickasaw Nations in 1785 and 1786. Similarly, the United States did not wish publicly to be perceived to be merely following British policies, such that it needed to demonstrate its independence from its former mother country. Therefore, British decrees had to be modified and given new birth as American instruments. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was transformed by the U.S. Congress into the NonIntercourse Act, passed on July 22, 1790, although the orientation was largely the same. A direct effect of the Revolution was an unleashing of pent-up demand for Indian land, thereby weakening the Indian nations that remained within American borders in political terms as well as economic and military ones. A by-product of the necessity for tribes to make peace with their far more populous neighbor was to look to the U.S. judiciary as a potential mechanism for their ongoing protection. Because they could no longer realistically appeal to the British Crown as an ally, and in the face of their declining military and trading importance to the American government, the only available alternative to leaving their traditional territory became the American court system. This choice also presented serious challenges for Indian nations who saw themselves as fully sovereign. How could they invoke the protection of a foreign court operating in a totally different legal system and in a foreign language? This was not an attractive option by any means, or one that many Indian nations chose, although a few did. What they discovered, not surprisingly, was a judicial system that was itself relatively fragile, a new institution primarily concerned about its own place within the American system of government and the vulnerability of this new country. Through three key decisions in the 1820s and 1830s, the U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, sought to develop a principled legal foundation for what was essentially a political compromise that justified the imposition of U.S. might and law on sovereign, independent countries. The stark options essentially available to the Court were either the continuation of a fully Indian, independent-nation sovereignty theory, or a complete absorption of Indian people into the body politic. The former could threaten American stability, as it would mean that Indian nations would retain the capacity to form treaties with European nations of their choosing—including the British to the north, whom they had defeated on two occasions, the French and Spanish to the south, and potentially

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

others. That possibility, obviously, was not attractive from an American perspective. On the other hand, to deny all Indian sovereignty would contradict the treaty history that existed in North America, as well as the initial postRevolution efforts of the U.S. government to form peaceful, treaty-based relationships with Indian nations. Such a legal position would also undermine the federal government’s own constitutional authority, as the Constitution’s division of powers with state governments had not precisely addressed the question of who possessed jurisdiction to engage in law-making and other aspects of noncommercial Indian affairs. Denying Indian sovereignty also could have the consequence of making the Indian people subjects or, potentially, citizens with a right to vote. Framed in a different fashion, the latter legal analysis would have meant that the federal government did not have the capacity to regulate the important economic domain of Indian trade, to deal with potential military threats, and to control vital revenue matters. It must be noted that one of the most significant methods of raising revenue before the introduction of the income tax system was the sale of government land. If the federal government controlled the acquisition of land from Indian nations through treaties, then it would acquire the revenue from the resale of those lands to settlers and thereby could direct the growth of populations and the creation of new states. Therefore, the status of Indian nations and their treaty relationships held grave importance for the U.S. Supreme Court, which was intent on flexing its legal muscles as it strove to confirm its identity as the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s response to these opportunities was to develop a hybrid approach—neither full acceptance nor full denial of the competing legal streams. He decided, instead, to construct a legal doctrine that transformed formerly independent Indian sovereignty into a continuing but internal variation through the concept of domestic dependent nationhood. Indian nations were defined as “domestic” in the sense that they were declared to have lost international status or the capacity to form relations with foreign countries. Their governments and their traditional territories were simply stated to be internal to the United States. They were further deemed to be “dependent” in that their authority was rendered subject to some initially undefined power on the part of Congress and the executive branch to infringe upon their autonomy. Marshall

www.abc-clio.com

213

also drew upon the imagery that Indian nations, by virtue of being dependent, were somehow like wards in relation to the U.S. government as their protector or guardian. The source of Marshall’s thinking was largely his assessment of the tides of history, in which he drew heavily upon his own research conducted for the preparation of a mammoth biography of George Washington. This was coupled with his desire to draft a compromise that advanced federal interests while simultaneously respecting some recognition of the reality of Indian nations as distinct, selfgoverning peoples who were the rightful original owners of the soil. His theory indicates that Indian sovereignty remains in existence yet is constrained, such that what remains of the formerly complete sovereignty is the residue that is subject to further intrusions by Congress in the future. This residual sovereignty includes the continuing power to negotiate treaties, but only with the United States, and to surrender territory for sale. The landmark litigation before the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832) did not, in fact, protect the Cherokee Nation; on the orders of President Andrew Jackson, they, among others, were forcibly dispossessed of their territory and marched west of the Mississippi—the infamous Trail of Tears. The Canadian experience during this same time period involved less drama; however, its consequences for many Indian nations were no less dramatic. The pressure for land to accommodate the arriving UELs and allied Indian nations required treaty making to switch emphasis from encouraging trade and peace to obtaining land on a massive scale for settlement and agriculture. Clearing the land in the south for farming meant a drastic reduction in the wildlife population’s capacity to support the traditional economy and reduced the importance of the fur trade, causing much of the trapping to relocate north and westward. The new wave of land cession treaties began in the late 1780s in southern Ontario, following the procedures of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 but focusing on acquiring clear legal title to land, in a form of property conveyance in return for a lump-sum payment that consisted of a combination of money and trade goods. Promises were made to reassure the Indian negotiators that they would continue to receive regular presents, would be able to hunt, fish, and trap as before, would be able to harvest wild or grown foods, and would retain some of their traditional lands. Little was said, however,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

214

Related Treaty Issues

about how the influx of white colonists would drastically reshape the landscape. By 1818, imperial officials were complaining that the cost of treaty payments was becoming too onerous for the local colony to bear; this led to the substitution of a scheme for annual payments (annuities). This effectively meant that an installment payment plan was used, in which Indian nations were compensated for their land out of a small portion of the money that actually came from the resale of Indian land to settlers and speculators, leaving the sizable profits to defray the cost of colonial government. The next significant development in the nature of treaties in Canada occurred through the negotiation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties, which affected the upper Great Lakes region. Not only did these two treaties operate on a far larger geographic scale (affecting more than twice the territory of all prior land surrender treaties combined), but they also introduced the concept of creating Indian reserves for individual communities out of small portions of the territory surrendered under treaty. These reserves were then set aside, after the extinguishment of aboriginal title, for the exclusive use of individual Indian communities, and the underlying title was claimed by the Crown. The Robinson Treaties effectively set the stage for all of the post-confederation treaties until the modern era.

Treaties from 1867 to 1930 Canada was formally confirmed as a semiindependent country in 1867, with Great Britain retaining ultimate control over all foreign affairs until the Statute of Westminster was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1931; even then, the parliament’s approval was required to amend Canada’s constitution until 1982. Canada considerably expanded its territorial base in 1870 by acquiring western and northern lands held by the Crown and those lands owned by the private Hudson’s Bay Company under a royal charter issued two hundred years earlier. The new national government of Canada immediately launched upon a campaign to negotiate treaties with the Indian nations in the southern portions of these areas to allow agriculture, forestry, and mining on a large scale while setting the stage for an expected massive influx of new settlers from Europe and the building of a national railway system. The so-called numbered treaties (numbered from 1 to 11 as they were negotiated from 1871 to 1921, with adhesions to Treaty 9 signed as late as

www.abc-clio.com

1930) followed the pattern set by the two Robinson Treaties of 1850. The written form of each treaty (in English only) involved the surrender of vast tracts of traditional territory to the federal Crown by Indian leaders on behalf of their populations. In return, the Indians were promised small parcels of land to be set aside as exclusive Indian reserves for particular communities, annual payments to each member, guarantees of continued hunting and fishing rights, and occasional other benefits (such as schools, farming implements, ammunition, and medical supplies). The indigenous version of the treaty negotiations, the oral promises made during the discussions, and the content of the final agreement are consistently asserted to differ dramatically from the “official” text. Many Indian elders have relayed stories of the negotiations as having focused on sharing the territory with the newcomers rather than surrendering the land absolutely, as Mother Earth could not be “sold.” Many others allege that only the surface of the land “to the depth of a plough” was being shared or given but not the subsurface resources, and that the territory was to be left undamaged. Few of the Indian participants could anticipate the large-scale settlements that were to occur in many of the treaty areas or how the influx of farmers and foresters would fundamentally alter the landscape in a way that would virtually destroy the traditional economy in the southern portion of the Prairies in only a few years. The thrust of the federal vision was that treaties would open up the region for immigrants and Canadians moving westward, whereas Indian people would disappear or be converted over time into farmers with their own plots of land so as to be assimilated into the general agrarian society. This policy was maintained even in northern areas that were completely ill-suited for agriculture with the technology available at the time. The establishment of the residential school system in the 1880s and its removal of all school-age children, enforced vigorously through pass (permission to leave the reserve) restrictions by police and government officials, coupled with the drastic reduction in wildlife harvesting opportunities and trapping income, left many Indian communities devastated—economically, socially, politically and spiritually. The Métis Nation was left in an even more destitute situation, as no communal land base was provided for their survival under treaty or otherwise. A federal statutory scheme, started in Manitoba in 1871 to offer individual entitlements to blocks of land or cash (called scrip) to Métis families

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

in lieu of treaty benefits, generated little tangible gain, as most recipients were quickly defrauded by land speculators. The passage of time led to a significant shift in federal governmental attitudes, as Indian people were thought to face either extinction as a race (in part through the massive death toll from imported diseases) or complete absorption into Canadian society as an underclass of farm workers and domestic laborers. Indian reserves became the means to “smooth the dying pillow” or to serve as a laboratory for social re-engineering and assimilation. This perception was far removed from the former view of sovereign Indian nations as military allies and valuable trading partners. Over time, treaties came to be viewed by nonaboriginal citizens as anachronistic documents that had outlived their purpose and were to be neither renewed nor replicated elsewhere. All of this was to change, however, with the decision in 1973 of the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia.

The Modern Treaty Era The Calder case was launched by the Nisga’a Nation of northwestern British Columbia as the latest salvo in their century-long struggle to have their land rights recognized by the Crown. They went to court to assert their rights over their traditional territory through the common-law doctrine of aboriginal title and drew heavily upon the Marshall decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to support their argument. They lost at trial, before the provincial court of appeal and again before the Supreme Court of Canada, ultimately on the procedural basis that they did not have the consent (or “fiat”) of the provincial government they were suing at a time when Crown immunity was still absolute. Nevertheless, six of the seven judges who addressed the case on its merits concluded that the doctrine of aboriginal title was still good law in Canada. Both leading judgments relied primarily on American jurisprudence to support their positions. Although these six judges were evenly split on whether or not the aboriginal title of the Nisga’a had been effectively extinguished by general public lands legislation during the colonial era, they all were of the view that the Nisga’a had never surrendered their title by treaty or lost it through conquest. The judges declared that aboriginal title could only have been extinguished by unilateral Crown action, and they differed on the level of explicitness required to meet the test for extinguish-

www.abc-clio.com

215

ment. Even the leading opinion of Justice Wilfred Judson, which ruled against the Nisga’a continuing to possess aboriginal title, still stated, “[T]the fact is, that when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries.” The fallout of this landmark decision for the federal government was immense, for it compelled both a complete reversal of its previous views and acceptance of the fact that aboriginal title likely still existed in large parts of Canada where no historic treaty had previously been negotiated. The government of Canada issued a major policy pronouncement in August 1973, in which it proposed to negotiate “comprehensive land claims agreements” based on unextinguished aboriginal title in the form of modern treaties. Litigation immediately ensued in the Northwest Territories and Quebec to block major proposed petroleum pipelines and hydroelectric projects. An agreement-in-principle was reached on November 15, 1974, among the Grand Council of the Cree, the Northern Quebec Inuit Association (now called the Makivik Corporation), the federal and provincial governments, Hydro-Quebec, and the James Bay Development Corporation, as the first major land claims agreement in the modern era. The parties concluded the final 455-page agreement the following November; over the next two years, legislation was passed by the National Assembly of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada to give the agreement added legal force. Major modern land-claim settlements have been negotiated between the government of Canada, the relevant provincial or territorial government, and the aboriginal titleholders over the past thirty years, as follows: The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975) The Northeastern Quebec Agreement (1978) The Inuvialuit (or Western Arctic) Final Agreement (1984) The Gwich’in Final Agreement (1991) The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993) The Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993) The Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000) Eleven individual Yukon First Nation Final Agreements based on the Council for Yukon Indians-Canada-Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement (1993), starting in 1995 and ending with the last one ratified in 2005

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

216

Related Treaty Issues

The Tlicho (Dogrib) Land Claims and SelfGovernment Agreement (2003) The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2003) The enabling legislation for the last two agreements on this list was proclaimed law in 2005. These settlements are all modern treaties that confirm exclusive land rights for the Indian, Inuit, and Métis participants of the relevant agreements that exist in Quebec, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut Territory, and Labrador, totaling more than 600,000 square kilometers (or more than 230,000 square miles). Many of them also include detailed descriptions of self-government jurisdiction. In addition, six large Métis settlements were established by the provincial government of Alberta in the 1930s for the exclusive use of those communities. As a result, almost 7 percent of Canada today is recognized as exclusively in aboriginal hands; however, these territories are not equitably distributed; many aboriginal communities are still without recognized lands. The ongoing effort to negotiate new treaties in Canada is a long way from a conclusion for many First Nations and Métis peoples, although the process is now completed for the Inuit all across northern Canada. Aboriginal communities in many parts of the country are still struggling for recognition that their traditional territory remains in their exclusive hands. Unresolved aboriginal title claims are in negotiation in southern parts of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Labrador, Quebec, the Ottawa valley region of Ontario, and throughout much of British Columbia. Ownership or title and jurisdiction of Canadian portions of the Great Lakes and the offshore waters remain outstanding. One can also anticipate that similar land claims will begin at some stage in the future in other parts of British Columbia and in the rest of Atlantic Canada concerning First Nations as well as the Labrador Métis. Negotiations have finally begun in Nova Scotia concerning the continuing legal and political significance of the treaties of peace and friendship of the early eighteenth century between the Mi’kmaq Nation and the British Crown in the aftermath of the Marshall commercial fishing decisions of 1999. Similar discussions may soon commence in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island involving the Mi’kmaq and Malecite Nations. The issue of Métis land rights, in regard to instances of extensive fraud under the nineteenth

www.abc-clio.com

century scrip system in the Prairies and also based on aboriginal title, has yet to find a sympathetic ear among nonaboriginal governments in Canada (other than the negotiations involving the South Slave Métis Tribal Council, Canada, and the government of the Northwest Territories). The 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Powley may advance the thinking in this regard, although the existence of aboriginal title for the Métis has yet to be brought to court. Also vigorously pursued by most First Nations is another type of land claim. Specific claims relate to unfulfilled treaty promises for the creation of reserves and other breaches of lawful obligations concerning reserve lands and natural resources. Whereas comprehensive land claims are based upon unextinguished aboriginal title, specific claims focus upon the loss of specific reserve lands, federal maladministration of band funds, and failure to fulfill or honor treaty promises in a manner that could be considered to breach Canadian law or equity. More than six hundred specific land claims are currently in negotiation, are under review by the federal Departments of Indian and Northern Affairs and Justice, or have been appealed to the Indian Specific Claims Commission. More than two hundred other claims have been settled over the past thirty years. A further three hundred claims are still in early stages of the assessment process, whereas estimates of one thousand to two thousand more claims not yet filed have been suggested. A further reality is that federal and provincial governments are slowly recognizing that First Nations and Métis communities are not only entitled to govern themselves but should be allowed to get on with doing so. Thus, First Nations are confirming their jurisdictions in various parts of the country, with the concurrence of federal, provincial, and territorial governments, through negotiating self-government agreements that can take the form of treaties. Perhaps the best-known, most controversial example in this regard has been the Nisga’a treaty in British Columbia, the validity of which has been unsuccessfully challenged in a number of lawsuits. Eleven self-government agreements are in place in the Yukon (with three more under negotiation), one in the Northwest Territories, and one in Labrador. There are also agreements-in-principle or final agreements on self-government with the Meadow Lake Tribal Council in Saskatchewan, the Sioux Valley First Nation in Manitoba, the United Anishnabeg Council in Ontario, and Deline First

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

Nation in the Northwest Territories as well as a number of sectoral agreements with the Mohawks of Kahnawake.

The Position of Aborginal Peoples The 2001 census report on the status of aboriginal peoples indicates that slightly more than 1.3 million people have some aboriginal ancestry, with 976,305 individuals defining themselves as being North American Indian (608,850), Métis (292,310) or Inuit (45,070) (Canada 2003a). The latest data demonstrate that the level of self-identification directly as an aboriginal person grew by 22.2 percent from 1996 to 2001. At least half of this growth stems from personal redefinition, that is, individuals choosing to redefine themselves as to their aboriginal identity. This redefinition can be seen, for example, in the Métis population, as it increased by 43 percent during this short period. The official population of Indian people recognized as such by federal statute (the Indian Act) has also grown at an extremely rapid and varied rate, rising from only 323,782 registered Indians in 1981 to 690,101 twenty years later (Canada 2003b). This growth, however, is inconsistent, as the Indian population grew at an overall annual rate of more than 7 percent from 1986 to 1999 but only 1.9 percent per year from 1991 to 1996 (Guimond 1999). A number of possible explanations exist for this excessive and varied growth. First, it is clear that higher birth rates and longer life spans have naturally increased the aboriginal population. Nevertheless, natural population growth alone is incapable of explaining levels that far exceed the theoretical maximum of 5.5 percent for natural annual population increase (Guimond 1999). A second possible explanation can be attributed to the changing legal status and definition of the designation Indian. The 1985 amendments to the federal Indian Act have caused the percent change in the registered Indian population growth rate to fluctuate considerably, nearly quadrupling between 1985 and 1986 before returning to preamendment levels (Canada 2002). As of December 31, 2001, a total of 112,306 Indians were registered based on the legislative amendments of 1985 and made up 16 percent of the Indian Register (Canada 2002). A third possible explanation may also be attributed to ethnic mobility, a phenomenon whereby the ethnic identity chosen and reported by individuals changes over time (Guimond 1999).

www.abc-clio.com

217

This growing aboriginal population is becoming increasingly urbanized, while social problems are still very common, unfortunately, in First Nations communities. The number of status Indian children kept in nonparental care increased by 50 percent during the 1990s. Statistics regarding the state of health among aboriginal peoples are also highly discouraging; however, there are signs of improvement. Since 1975, the life expectancy for an aboriginal male has increased from 59.2 years to 68.9 years in 2000. Similarly, aboriginal women are now expected to live to 76.6 years, whereas in 1975 the life expectancy was only 65.9 years (Canada 2002). Although life expectancy for aboriginal peoples is expected to continue to rise and to draw nearer to that of the general Canadian population, there continues to be a gap between these two groups of approximately 6.3 years (Canada 2002). In comparison to nonaboriginals, the much higher rates of illness, injury, and death among aboriginal peoples serve as a constant reminder of the disparities that exist within Canada. Suicide rates for both male and female registered Indian youth are five and seven times higher, respectively, than the Canadian average; these youth suicide rates represent some of the highest in the world (Guimond 2002). In 1997, the rate of tuberculosis in First Nations was approximately eight times that of the rest of Canada (Canada 2002). Moreover, registered Indians in Canada continue to suffer from far higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, and violent death. The rate of incarceration of aboriginal peoples in Canada remains extraordinarily high and disproportionate with respect to the remainder of the nonaboriginal Canadian population. Although Canada already possesses one of the highest incarceration rates among developed countries at 129 per 100,000 Canadians, adult aboriginal people are imprisoned at more than eight times the national rate. High unemployment continues to plague aboriginal communities and ensures that a large segment of the population remains on social assistance. Almost 38 percent of reserve residents (or 148,236 Indian people, on a monthly average) depended upon social assistance payments for survival in 2000–2001 (Canada 2002). Many more relied largely on employment insurance, old age pensions, and payments from the Canada Pension Plan. In this way, the largest source of income for a majority of on-reserve residents came directly from individual federal payments. There were, however, postsecondary education rates of more than 27,000

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

218

Related Treaty Issues

status Indians per year; 35 percent were over thirty years old, and two-thirds of them were women. It should also be noted that $5 billion from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and an additional $2 billion from other federal departments is provided annually; 90 percent of this funding targets only First Nations and Inuit groups. This causes a growing number of complaints and litigation from the Métis and nonstatus Indians, who feel they deserve equivalent attention. Despite the statistics indicating a growing population, severe societal issues, and highly economically dependent communities, the national land base set aside exclusively as Indian reserves remains at only three million hectares, or approximately 0.3 percent of Canada. This small reserve space provides a thoroughly inadequate natural resource base, creating substantial pressure on most First Nations, who find it increasingly difficult to accommodate their populations and support their economies. Métis peoples face an even more restrictive situation, as fewer than 5 percent have access to the six Métis settlements in Alberta. This dire situation has increased significantly the importance placed, in recent years, on the proper fulfillment of treaty commitments made in historic treaties by the Crown, on settling outstanding land claims, and on negotiating new treaties to reflect current realities and future aspirations. Those aboriginal communities who have successfully concluded modern treaties in recent years face a far brighter future than those without such agreements. It should be appreciated, however, that achieving even a modern treaty is not an end in itself. Ongoing struggles also arise for Inuit, Métis, and First Nations parties in their efforts to seek full implementation of the fundamental commitments made in the new treaties by governments and to ensure that, this time, the relevant government signatories will honor the terms of these solemn promises.

tionship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, which has received constitutional elevation through Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Each of these basic tenets is having a profound impact on the way in which both federal and provincial governments must interrelate with Indian, Inuit, and Métis communities.

Legal Interpretation Principles for Treaties The current chief justice of Canada, Beverly McLachlin, summarized the jurisprudence developed by Canadian courts over the prior three decades in the leading treaty fishing-rights case of Regina v. Marshall (No 1) in 1999. She listed the following as the proper legal guidelines to be used in interpreting treaty provisions (at paragraph 78 with sources deleted):

The Modern Legal Status of Treaties Treaty negotiations have been heavily affected in several critical respects by the jurisprudence that has evolved over the last twenty years. As discussed following, the courts have articulated a clear set of principles that must guide all efforts to interpret the proper meaning to be given to historic as well as modern treaties. The Supreme Court has also definitively established the existence of a fiduciary rela-

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1. Aboriginal treaties constitute a unique type of agreement and attract special principles of interpretation. 2. Treaties should be liberally construed and ambiguities or doubtful expressions should be resolved in favour of the aboriginal signatories. 3. The goal of treaty interpretation is to choose from among the various possible interpretations of common intention the one which best reconciles the interests of both parties at the time the treaty was signed. 4. In searching for the common intention of the parties, the integrity and honour of the Crown is presumed. 5. In determining the signatories’ respective understanding and intentions, the court must be sensitive to the unique cultural and linguistic differences between the parties. 6. The words of the treaty must be given the sense which they would naturally have held for the parties at the time. 7. A technical or contractual interpretation of treaty wording should be avoided. 8. While construing the language generously, courts cannot alter the terms of the treaty by exceeding what “is possible on the language” or realistic. 9. Treaty rights of aboriginal peoples must not be interpreted in a static or rigid way. They are not frozen at the date of signature. The interpreting court must update treaty rights

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

to provide for their modern exercise. This involves determining what modern practices are reasonably incidental to the core treaty right in its modern context. It is important to note, however, that these principles may be subject to modification when interpreting a modern treaty, as the circumstances are drastically different. The aboriginal party has received the full benefit of legal counsel and is negotiating highly detailed documents through a lengthy period of time in a language with which they are comfortable. The federal court of appeal has suggested that modern treaties should be viewed quite differently and more akin to other contractual agreements among relatively equal parties. The Quebec Court of Appeal has adopted a somewhat hybrid approach and has suggested that modern treaties should be interpreted according to the intentions of all the parties, rather than automatically assuming that any ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the indigenous signatory. At the same time, the court also noted the fundamental importance of the subject matter in that case—education—to the Cree. The court concluded that a liberal, generous interpretation was warranted for the provisions concerning the participation of the Cree in discussions establishing the annual budget for the Cree school board. Jurisprudence thus indicates that the Crown and its representatives, in dealing with all historic treaties, must adhere to the general treaty principles elaborated by the courts over the last forty-two years since the leading decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Regina v. White and Bob in 1964. In the intervening years, these principles have become somewhat modified—but only slightly—in the effort to ascertain the true meaning of the language used in modern treaties and other agreements reached between aboriginal peoples and federal or provincial governments. The primary focal point for conflicts between First Nations and other governments, resulting in frequent litigation, is the assertion of treatyprotected harvesting rights running afoul of general legislation aimed at regulating natural resources on Crown (federal or provincial government-owned) lands. These conflicts became commonplace in the 1950s with the more vigorous enforcement of hunting and fishing laws in rural and northern areas. The amount of litigation escalated considerably in the 1960s with the imposition of more detailed statutory

www.abc-clio.com

219

restrictions on impermissible locations for harvesting fish and wildlife, allowed methods and equipment for harvesting, establishment of licensing requirements, identification of precluded and permitted harvesting times, and regulation of the sale of harvested goods. Asserting treaty rights as a ground of defense has been a common strategy in many parts of Canada since the 1970s, and the volume of charges laid for allegedly illegal activity by First Nations members has yet to abate noticeably, even though treaty rights obtained constitutional protection in 1982. It has also become more common of late for Métis and nonrecognized Indian people to be charged with such violations and for them to seek to assert an aboriginal or treaty right to hunt or fish free from such statutory restraints. A major reason for this continuing conflict is that the federal and provincial legislation in this sector has rarely been designed to accommodate the unique legal situation of aboriginal harvesters and treaty rights. As a result, governments have sought to impose a uniform natural resource management regime upon aboriginal peoples, who firmly believe they have an inherent right to maintain their traditional activities free from external regulation. The latter perspective is often further supported, in many parts of the country, by solemn Crown commitments, given in express language in individual treaties, that the Indian parties and their descendants would be free to hunt, fish, and trap forever as they had done for untold number of generations. In recent years, similar conflicts have extended beyond wildlife to include disputes over aboriginal and treaty rights to log trees on Crown land for personal use, to use in the production of goods, and for sale as raw logs. The Supreme Court of Canada in July 2005 overturned appellate courts in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that had previously upheld treaty rights to commercial logging (Regina v. Marshall and Regina v. Bernard respectively). The Supreme Court decided that the specific language in the treaty in question guaranteed only a right to trade goods today that were proven to have been actively traded with the British at the time the treaty was signed in 1760–1761. Because there was some limited trade in wood products at that time but not in raw logs themselves, the defendants did not have the treaty right to harvest trees on Crown land and then sell the logs without provincial government permission in the form of a license. Many other natural resource claims have yet to be pursued on a treaty basis.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

220

Related Treaty Issues

Rights have also been asserted through reliance on particular treaty terms for exemption from income tax, for guarantees of financial support for university education, for the provision of free and comprehensive health care, for the availability of adequate housing, and regarding other important governmental initiatives. Efforts have also been made to resist the application of gun control and other laws to First Nations through reliance on treaty commitments. These efforts have met with mixed success. A further recent development in treaty litigation in Canada has been the complaints of First Nations and Inuit peoples, with either modern or historic treaties, that other governments have not consulted with them effectively prior to making decisions that may have a major impact upon their daily lives and territories. This concern has arisen in relation to federal or provincial proposals to launch new policies or programs—or to change existing ones—in allocating natural-resource harvesting rights to companies; in approving planned mines and petroleum developments; and in considering potential environmental impacts of energy projects, the building of new roads, and the like. Similar protests have been launched by First Nations seeking to negotiate new treaty agreements who believe that their position will inevitably be altered for the worse prior to reaching such arrangements if governments authorize large-scale logging, mining, oil drilling, electricity generating, and other such projects on land that is subject to aboriginal title claims. The same strategy has been used to challenge aquaculture operations (fish farms) and other activities in coastal waters, by insisting upon full First Nations’ involvement in decision making so as to protect the environment. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Haida Nation case, has confirmed that the federal and provincial governments have a legally enforceable duty to respect the honor of the Crown by consulting meaningfully with aboriginal communities when their unique aboriginal or treaty rights might be negatively impacted. This duty may also require the government to seek to accommodate legitimate aboriginal concerns by altering its proposals or requiring changes from third parties before authorizing the planned activities to proceed if these constitutionally protected rights might be infringed.

within its external borders between the descendants of European settlers (as well as immigrants from the rest of the world) and the original sovereign owners of this land, as succeeded by the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of today. In many parts of Canada, these relationships have been built upon the foundation of mutually binding commitments in the form of treaties. Canada has been far less successful, however, in ensuring that a common understanding of the fundamental purpose of these treaty compacts, along with a mutual acceptance of the precise meaning of the treaty terms, remained alive among—and were honored by—subsequent generations. Oral histories of the actual treaty negotiations and the words agreed upon are very much a part of the fabric of regular life for many First Nations communities. Most nonaboriginal Canadians, however, have virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the significance of Crown-Indian treaties in their own lives as a critical source of the rights and benefits that they enjoy as members of Canadian society and as the source of much of the prosperity on which the Canadian economy has been built. The ongoing need to negotiate treaties for the first time in some parts of the country, along with the need to revitalize and renew the historic treaty commitments from generations ago, will continue to be a noteworthy aspect of domestic development for quite some years to come. Through devoting greater attention to the import of treaties, whether they result from hands extended in friendship several centuries ago or through the flourish of pens at signing ceremonies yesterday and tomorrow, hopefully Canadians will develop a greater appreciation of their unique opportunity to create a truly modern nation based on profound respect and partnership. Bradford W. Morse

Conclusion Over the past four centuries, Canada has been reasonably successful in forging peaceful relationships

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

References and Further Reading Court Cases Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, SCR 313 (1973). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 3 SCR 511 (2004). Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 1 CNLR 78 (2006). Regina v. Marshall (No. 1), 3 SCR 456 (1999). Regina v. Marshall (No. 2), 3 SCR 533 (1999). Regina v. Marshall; Regina v. Bernard, 3 CNLR 214 (2005). Regina v. Powley, 4 CNLR 321(SCC) (2003).

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties

Regina v. White and Bob, 50 DLR (2d) 193 (B.C.C.A.) (1964). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). Books and Articles Alfred, Taiaiake. 1999. Peace, Power and Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: Iwin. Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 12: 179. Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153. Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Canada. 2002, March. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Basic Departmental Data 2001. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services. Online: , at 2. Canada. 2003a, January. Census: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: A Semographic Profile Ottawa: Minister of Industry. Online: Statistics Canada Canada. 2003b, March. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Basic Departmental Data 2002. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services. Online: http://www .ainc-inac.go.ca/prsts/bdd02/bidd02_c .pdfat3 Coates, Ken. 2000. The Marshall Decision and Native Rights. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Guimond, Eric. 1999. “Ethnic Mobility and the Demographic Growth of Canada’s Aboriginal Populations from 1986 to 1996.” In Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1998–1999. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Guimond, Eric. 2002. “Aboriginal Profile 2001.” Unpublished. Hull, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Groves, Robert K., and Bradford W. Morse. 2004. “Constituting Aboriginal Collectivities:

www.abc-clio.com

221

Avoiding New Peoples ‘In Between.’” Saskatchewan Law Review 67(1): 257. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997. “Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law Review 36(1)1: 46. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000. “Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680–1890. 1905. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Reprint, Saskatoon, SK: Fifth House, 1992. Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook, 2nd ed. Scarborough, ON: Carswell. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and Beyond. Saskatoon, SK: Purich. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their Breach. Saskatoon, SK: Purich. Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Errol Mendes, 1171–1257. Markham, ON: LexisNexis Butterworths. O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, ed. 1853–1861. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons. Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Purich, Donald. 1988. The Métis. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196. Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Upton, Leslie F. S. 1979. Micmacs and Colonists: IndianWhite Relations in the Maritimes, 1713–1867. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Regional Essays California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest Canada Northeast and the Great Lakes Northern Plains Southeast and Florida Southern Plains and the Southwest

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

225 235 243 251 259 267

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest Introduction

N N

ative Americans of the far West entered into treaty making with the United States during the 1850s. By this time, the U.S. government had established procedures for acquiring Native land title by treaty. Nevertheless, large portions of the far West remain nontreaty areas. In this essay, the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California are discussed in relation to the Indian treaties of the Northwest, Plateau, and California culture areas. In addition, treaties made by the Native peoples of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to annexation by the United States in 1898 are discussed.

The Pacific Northwest By the Treaty of Oregon, the United States gained control over what are now the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The Oregon Territory was created two years later, and in 1853 Washington Territory was separated. Most ratified treaties in the Pacific Northwest were negotiated in the mid-1850s, but there were earlier attempts that resulted in a number of nonratified treaties. Prior to the Treaty of Oregon of 1846, which established the boundary between British North America and the United States, the Pacific Northwest was jointly claimed by the two nations. Considerable numbers of Americans immigrated to the Pacific Northwest from 1843 to 1846, primarily settling in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. The federal government established a treaty process in 1850 when Anson Dart was appointed superintendent of Indian affairs for the Oregon Territory. Dart’s task was to remove the Native groups in the vicinity of European American settlement, preferably to the eastern portion of the territory. He quickly realized that such a proposition would be unacceptable to the Native peoples and instead sought to create small reservations near their settlements and fishing locations. Native peoples west of the Cascade Range were particularly adamant about not moving to the drier east side of the territory (Coan 1921, 57). Between June 1850 and March 1853, twentythree treaties were negotiated with various tribes of western Oregon Territory. None of these treaties were ratified. Different federal representatives nego-

tiated on behalf of the U.S. government. In June 1850, the governor of Oregon Territory, Joseph Lane, negotiated a peace treaty with the Takelma of the Rogue River valley in order to protect settlers in the area. In the spring of 1851, six treaties were signed with the Kalapuya and the Molala of the Willamette Valley by a commission that included Lane and Dart. When it was discovered that it would be impossible to remove the tribes from the Willamette Valley without resorting to force, the commission abandoned its work. Unbeknownst to the commissioners, the Willamette Valley Treaty Commission had been abolished by Congress prior to the time they had begun negotiating treaties. As a result, these six treaties were never ratified. Another peace treaty with the Takelma was negotiated by Governor John Gaines in July 1851. Then, in August, Indian superintendent Anson Dart initiated a treaty program with the groups around the mouth of the Columbia River for the express purpose of “extinguishing Indian land title” and moving them to reservations. Dart became painfully aware that his task was hopeless. He could not persuade the Indians to leave their village sites and burial grounds, nor could he persuade them to agree to annuity payments beyond a tenyear span. Dart came to understand their reasoning, “fully aware of the rapidity with which, as a people, they are wasting away . . . they could not be persuaded to fix a time beyond ten years to receive all of their money in exchange for their lands” (Boxberger and Taylor 1991, 42). Although signed and forwarded to Washington, D.C., none of the thirteen treaties negotiated by Dart were ever ratified. The settlers were opposed to them because they did not provide for removal. Governor Joseph Lane, subsequently territorial representative to Congress, possibly lobbied against them because they did not provide for removal east of the Cascade Range, a policy he recommended while governor of Oregon Territory. Ultimately, the Senate refuse to ratify the treaties, reasoning that they had been made with “insignificant tribes” (Boxberger and Taylor 1991, 42). Another peace treaty, with the Rogue River tribes in September 1853, and further negotiations with the Willamette Valley tribes completed the attempts at treaty making that never came to fruition in Oregon Territory.

225 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

226

Regional Essays

Joel Palmer replaced Anson Dart as superintendent of Indian affairs in 1853. At the same time, Washington Territory was separated from Oregon Territory, and Isaac I. Stevens was appointed governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for Washington Territory, which included the presentday states of Washington and Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming. Both Palmer and Stevens initiated comprehensive treaty negotiations for their respective territories; where tribal lands crossed territorial boundaries, they conducted joint negotiations. Seven treaties with the coastal and Willamette Valley tribes of western Oregon were negotiated between September 1854 and December 1855 (see Table 2, page 230). The Cow Creek and Rogue River treaties (Treaty with the Umpqua-Cow Creek Band, Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc.) provided for reservations in southwest Oregon, but hostilities between the settlers and the tribes persuaded Palmer to remove them to the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations farther north along the coast. The Palmer treaties were indicative of U.S. treaty policy in the 1850s. The numerous small tribes and bands were “confederated” for convenience, and “chiefs and headmen” were appointed by the government representatives to facilitate the negotiation process. Numerous tribes were consolidated on the two reservations, often becoming neighbors with groups with whom they had hostilities. Although treaty tribes were placed on the Grande Ronde and the Siletz, these were executive order reservations and thereby subject to reduction. The removal process was traumatic; many groups were forced to the reservations under military escort. The reservations had no provisions for food, housing, or medical assistance. As a result, starvation and disease took their toll. When Isaac I. Stevens assumed the governorship of Washington Territory in 1853, his responsibilities included entering into treaties with the Native people. Stevens would eventually negotiate ten treaties between December 1854 and January 1856, all of which were ratified. Stevens’s contact with Indians prior to his appointment as governor had been limited; as such, his policy was shaped by the prevailing attitude of the commissioner of Indian affairs, George Manypenny. Manypenny believed that Indians should be assimilated into the dominant society, and consequently the policies of his administration reflected this viewpoint. Manypenny especially advocated the allotment of reservation lands to

www.abc-clio.com

individual tribal members as a means of expediting the “civilizing process.” This policy was written into the nine treaties Manypenny was in the midst of personally negotiating with the tribes just west of the Mississippi River between March and June 1854. He strongly urged Stevens to follow this policy when he suggested that Stevens use two of these treaties, the Treaty with the Omaha and the Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, as models for the treaties in Washington Territory. Stevens began the treaty process in December 1854 by appointing a commission to review the Oto and Missouri and Omaha treaties and adapt them accordingly. It was decided that additional provisions would be necessary, especially provisions reserving the right to access fishing locations and creating numerous small reservations, as opposed to a single large reservation. The first treaty negotiation was held at Medicine Creek with the Nisqually, Puyallup, and others in December 1854. Within twelve months, Stevens had secured a total of ten treaties. The Medicine Creek treaty was ratified just three months later, but the outbreak of hostilities delayed the ratification of the subsequent treaties until 1859. Stevens was gone from Washington Territory shortly after the treaty-making years. Elected territorial representative to Congress in 1857, Stevens was himself responsible for seeing that the treaties were ratified by the Senate. After the negotiations at Medicine Creek, Stevens set about securing treaties with the rest of the tribes in western Washington. Things went smoothly; there were negotiations at Point Elliott, Point No Point, and Neah Bay, all in January 1855. These four treaties covered most of western Washington, but the final treaty, with the tribes of the southwest portion of the territory, did not go well. At the Chehalis River in February 1855, Stevens sought to negotiate with the Chehalis, Cowlitz, Chinook, Quinalt, and other tribes of southwest Washington, some of whom had earlier negotiated treaties with Anson Dart when the area was still part of Oregon Territory. Knowing that Dart’s treaties were turned down because they failed to remove the Indians from the area of densest settler population, Stevens was adamant that all the tribes remove to a single reservation on the central Washington coast. The only tribe willing to sign the treaty was the Quinalt, primarily because the proposed reservation was in their territory. The treaty negotiations broke down because Stevens would not give in to the request to establish separate reservations in the different tribal

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest

territories. The following January, the Quinalt and Quileute signed the Treaty of Olympia, which created reservations on the central Washington coast. Subsequently, executive order reservations were created for the Chehalis and the Chinook, but they remain nontreaty tribes. In the summer and fall of 1855, treaty councils were held with the Indians of eastern Washington and Oregon Territories. The first was at Walla Walla in May and June. This council was attended by Stevens and Palmer, as some of the tribes in attendance claimed traditional lands in both Oregon and Washington Territories. On June 9, two treaties were signed: the Yakima treaty with fourteen tribes and bands, now known as the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation, and the Walla Walla treaty, with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla, which was jointly negotiated by Stevens and Palmer. Two days later, the various bands of the Nez Perce tribe signed a treaty with Stevens and Palmer that created a large reservation in what is now southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and central Idaho. The Nez Perce Reservation was reduced in size by two subsequent treaties. In June 1863, the Treaty of Lapwai reduced the Nez Perce Reservation from 7.7 million acres to just over 750,000 acres; the Nez Perce refer to this as the “thief treaty.” In 1868, the third Nez Perce treaty clarified the harvest of timber on the reservation. This was the last treaty between the U.S. government and an Indian tribe before treaty making was abandoned as Indian policy in 1871. After the Walla Walla treaty council, Stevens left to negotiate further treaties in eastern Washington Territory, and Palmer left to negotiate with other tribes of eastern Oregon. Palmer met with a number of tribes from north central Oregon near The Dalles in June 1855, concluding with the Treaty of Middle Oregon. Like the previous treaties, this treaty created a reservation for several bands. The Warm Springs Reservation of north central Oregon was to become the home of the western Columbia River Sahaptin and the Upper Chinook bands. Similar to the other Pacific Northwest treaties, this treaty contained a provision establishing the right to fish at usual and accustomed places and to hunt and gather on open and unclaimed lands. The subsequent superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon, J. W. Perit Huntington, secured a treaty in November 1865 that was designed to limit off-reservation subsistence activities and encourage on-reservation agriculture.

www.abc-clio.com

227

In July 1855, Stevens met with the Flathead, Kutenai, and Pend d’Oreille at Hell Gate in the Bitterroot Valley. The Hell Gate treaty created the Flathead Indian Reservation in what is now Montana (Bigart and Woodcock 1996). From Hell Gate, Stevens traveled to Fort Benton to meet with the Blackfeet. This treaty created a Blackfeet Territory over a huge portion of the northwest plains. Subsequent attempts at treaty making in eastern Washington Territory were suspended when hostilities broke out among the tribes’ signatory to the Yakima and Medicine Creek treaties. The Indian War of 1855–1856, sometimes referred to as the Yakima War, was the direct result of the dissatisfaction with the Stevens treaties. For three years, this war consisted of skirmishes, raids, and indecisive battles. In September 1858, the Native leaders of the war were decisively defeated at the Battle of Four Lakes, which brought hostilities to an end. This war caused the delay of the ratification of the Stevens and Palmer treaties until 1859. Another impact of the war was that Stevens’s plans to negotiate with the tribes of the northeast portion of Washington State were interrupted, and thus they have never been party to a treaty. The Colville, Spokane, and Kalispel Reservations were later created by executive order, but these tribes remain nontreaty tribes. The tribes of south central Oregon met with J. W. Perit Huntington in October 1864 and concluded the Treaty with the Klamath. This treaty included the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Band of Northern Paiute. The Treaty with the Klamath created the Klamath Indian Reservation. The Modoc and Yahooskin were dissatisfied with the Klamath Reservation and soon left. Efforts to force them to return resulted in military action, culminating in the Modoc War of 1872–1873. After an extended standoff at Captain Jack’s Stronghold near Tule Lake in California, the Modoc War was concluded, and the Modoc were exiled to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) until after 1900, when they were permitted to return to Oregon. In 1954, when Congress initiated legislation to terminate tribes deemed capable of managing their own affairs, the Klamath was one of the first reservations to be terminated. One more treaty deserves mention here, as it included groups whose territory extended into southern Idaho and for whom an executive order reservation was subsequently established. The Fort Bridger treaty of July 1868 with the Shoshone and the Bannock established the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming and provided for a reservation for the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

228

Regional Essays

western Shoshone and Bannock “whenever the Bannacks desire” (Kappler 1904, 1020). By executive order, the Fort Hall Reservation in south central Idaho was established in July 1869 as the one contemplated in the Fort Bridger treaty. Previous attempts at treaty making in southern Idaho had failed. The Soda Springs treaty of 1863, the Treaty of Fort Boise in 1864, and the Bruneau River Treaty of 1864 were never ratified.

California On September 30, 1850, the U.S. Senate authorized the negotiation of treaties with the Native peoples of California. After the completion of eighteen treaties, the Senate chose on July 8, 1852, not to ratify any of them. As a result, the Native peoples of California have remained nontreaty tribes to this day. During the Spanish occupation from 1769 to 1821 and the Mexican rule from 1821 to 1846, treaties were not a matter of policy. Both the Spanish and the Mexicans considered the Native people subjects of the Crown and, through the system of missions, attempted to incorporate them into the dominant society. This approach had been used throughout Mexico but did not meet with much success in the northern outposts of the Spanish empire. At least two treaties of peace were made by Mexican authorities with the Wappo in 1836 and 1837 (Heizer 1978, 701), but these do not appear to have been formal treaty relationships. During the American period, local government agents signed treaties that were never authorized and never considered for ratification. General Mariano Vallejo secured the agreement of eleven groups of Pomo and Miwok in 1848. In the same year, J. A. Sutter secured an agreement with the Nisenan, who resided in the area where gold was discovered. Both of these documents were dismissed by government officials as unofficial governmental actions. The movement of large numbers of Americans into California was precipitated by the discovery of gold. By the end of 1849, more than one hundred thousand settlers and gold seekers had streamed into the territory. California became a state in September 1850, and the Senate immediately authorized the negotiation of treaties. From 1850 to 1880, the American citizens of California engaged in a process of genocide against Native peoples. Voluntary militias and groups of vigilantes systematically hunted down and slaughtered thousands of Native people. Although the United States government did not con-

www.abc-clio.com

done this action, it did nothing to stop it. By 1890, only twenty thousand Native people remained in the state of California out of a pre-Columbian population some estimate to have been as high as one million. In the midst of these acts of genocide, a commission of three agents was sent to negotiate treaties. These treaties were to secure title to the land and to remove the California Natives from contact with miners and settlers. In all, eighteen treaties were negotiated and signed by Native representatives and the agents of the U.S. government. Each of the treaties set aside a tract of land for a reservation and other concessions, such as agricultural instruction, food rations, and annuities. Early in the treaty-making process, the commissioners decided that, if they attempted to work together, they could never meet with the vast number of tribal groups. Splitting up, each of the three took a section of the state and set about securing acceptance of a model treaty they developed. Redick McKee covered the area north of San Francisco, George Barbour the San Joaquin Valley south, and O. M. Wozencraft took the Coast Range from south of San Francisco to the Sacramento River. In all, 139 tribes were listed in the treaties. Later analyses found that many of these tribes were listed erroneously. Heizer and Kroeber determined that, of the 139 tribes, 67 were identifiable as tribelets, 45 were village names, 14 were duplicates with different spellings, and 13 were either personal names or unidentifiable (Heizer 1978, 703). In July 1852, the Senate rejected the California treaties, and no further treaty negotiations were authorized. Congress established seven reservations in California between 1853 and 1855. Beset by corruption that led to destitution and continued annihilation of Native peoples, these reservations were reduced in size or abandoned altogether. Subsequently, reservations and rancherias were established by executive order, purchase, or other means. Eventually, 117 reservations and rancherias would be established; nearly half of them would be terminated in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Kingdom of Hawaii At the time Europeans first arrived in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, there existed a number of chiefdoms under the control of local elite rulers. The hierarchical system included the ali’i (nobility), the Konohiki (land managers), and the Maka’ainana (commoners). Beginning in 1791, the chief of the island of Hawaii,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest

Kamehameha, began a campaign to unite the islands under a single kingdom, which was nearly complete by 1795. In 1810, with the joining of Kauai, the Kingdom of Hawaii was established. Kamehameha ruled Hawaii from 1810 to 1819. Over the next eighty years, there would be a total of eight rulers of the kingdom. Kamehameha II ruled from 1819 to 1824. During his reign, the ancient kapui system—the set of laws regulating societal behavior—underwent revision, especially the kapui on women and men eating together. Coinciding with the arrival of missionaries in 1820, the breakdown of the kapui paved the way for new religious beliefs to be incorporated into Hawaiian life. Kamehameha III assumed the throne in 1825 and ruled for thirty years. In 1840, Kamehameha III introduced Hawaii’s first constitution. The constitution defined the powers of the monarch and distributed the

229

King’s absolute powers among the monarchy, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives. The constitution also provided for a court system. Kamehameha III sent delegations to the United States and Europe to secure treaties and established Hawaii’s sovereignty. In 1842, President John Tyler gave his assurance that Hawaii would be recognized as an independent nation by the United States. Similarly, Queen Victoria issued a decree that the United Kingdom recognized Hawaii as an independent state. As a result of recognition, Hawaii began entering into treaties with a number of nations. Between 1826 and 1887, Hawaii signed thirty treaties and agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Japan, and a number of other nations. Four treaties were entered into with the United States. In 1898, when the United States annexed

Table 1 Non-Ratified Treaties, Pacific Northwest Tribe

U.S. Negotiator

Date

Takelma

Joseph Lane

June 1850

Santiam Kalapuya Tualatim Kalapuya Yamhill Kalapuya Lakmiut Kalapuya Molala Santiam Molala

Willamette Valley Treaty Commission

April 1851 April 1851 May 1851 May 1851 May 1851 May 1851

Takelma

John Gaines

July 1851

Lower Band of Chinook Wheelapa Band of Chinook Quillequeoqua Band of Chinook Waukikum Band of Chinook Konnack Band of Chinook Klatskania Band of Chinook Kathlamet Band of Chinook Wallooska (Personal Name) Band of Chinook Clatsop Band of Chinook Tillamook Band of Chinook Port Orford Treaties (2) Clackamas

Anson Dart

August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 August 1851 September 1851 September 1851

Rogue River Indians

Joseph Lane

September 1853

Tualatin Kalapuya Coastal Tribes

Joel Palmer

March 1854 August September 1855

Source: Kappler 1904, Vol. II

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

230

Regional Essays

Table 2 Ratified Treaties, Pacific Northwest Tribe

U.S. Negotiator

Rogue River Indians Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Takelma Chasta, Scoton, Takelma Upper Umpqua, Yoncalla Kalapuya Confederated Bands of Kalapuya Molala

Joel Palmer

September 1854 September 1854 November 1854 November 1854 November 1854 January 1855 December 1855

Date

April 1854 April 1854 March 1855 March 1855 March 1855 March 1855 March 1859

Ratified

Medicine Creek Point Elliott Point No Point Makah Quinalt, Quileute Confederated Tribes of Yakama

Isaac Stevens

December 1854 January 1855 January 1855 January 1855 January 1856 June 1855

March 1855 March 1859 March 1859 March 1859 March 1859 March 1859

Walla Walla, Umatilla, Cayuse Nez Perce

Isaac Stevens and Joel Palmer

June 1855 June 1855

March 1859 March 1859

Tribes of Middle Oregon

Joel Palmer

June 1855

March 1859

Hell Gate Blackfeet

Isaac Stevens

July 1855 October 1855

March 1859 April 1859

Nez Perce (Lapwai)

C. H. Hale, Charles Hutchins, S. D. Howe

June 1863

April 1867

Klamath, Modoc,Paiute

J. W. Perit Huntington, William Logan

October 1864

July 1866

Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

J. W. Perit Huntington

November 1865

March 1867

Nez Perce

Nathaniel G. Taylor

August 1868

February 1869

Source: Kappler 1904, Vol. II

Hawaii, Congressional Joint Resolution No. 55 stated, “The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease . . . being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations.” The Great Mahele of 1848 introduced a new system of land tenure. Previously, the king had owned all the land; now he relinquished control, title passed to the island chiefs, and each commoner received three acres. Land reform had effectively opened Hawaiian land to developers, who quickly stepped in and obtained large portions of land, which were converted to plantations. As the sugar industry boomed and introduced diseases took their toll on the Native Hawaiian population, large numbers of immigrants came to Hawaii to work the plantations.

www.abc-clio.com

In 1851, the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii passed a resolution calling for a revision of the constitution of 1840. This constitution, adopted in 1852, further restricted the role of the monarch and created a constitutional monarchy. With the death of Kamehameha III in 1854, Kamehameha IV ascended the throne. During his short reign from 1854 to 1863, further legal changes included new naturalization laws, which allowed non-Native Hawaiians to become citizens of the nation. With the death of Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V assumed the throne. His primary legacy was to call for a constitutional convention to revise the constitution of 1852. The constitution of 1864 returned some of the powers to the monarch and restricted the right to vote. Under the constitution, the monarch was to name his successor during his

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest

231

Table 3 Non-Ratified Treaties, California Tribe

U.S. Negotiator

Date

Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc.

Redick McKee

March 1851

Treaty with the Howechees, etc.

Redick McKee

April 1851

Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc.

George W. Barbour

May 1851

Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A-Si, etc.

George W. Barbour

May 1851

Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

May 1851

Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-Woz, etc.

George W. Barbour

June 1851

Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc.

George W. Barbour

June 1851

Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-Ma-Do, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

July 1851

Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es-Kun, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

August 1851

Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

August 1851

Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc.

Redick McKee

August 1851

Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki-As, etc.

Redick McKee

August 1851

Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

September 1851

Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

September 1851

Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc.

Redick McKee

October 1851

Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River

Redick McKee

November 1851

Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc.

O. M. Wozencraft

January 1852

Treaty with the Diegunio

O. M. Wozencraft

January 1852

Source: Kappler 1929, Vol. IV: 1081-1128

Table 4 Treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America Treaty

Signators

Date

Articles of Agreement

King Kamehameha III

December 1826

Thomas ap Catesby Jones Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands

King Kamehameha III

December 1849

President Zachary Taylor Treaty of Reciprocity

Elisha P. Allen (Chancellor of Hawaii)

January 1875

President Ulysses S. Grant Convention of 1884

King Kalakaua

December 1884

Ratified by United States Senate Source: Hawaiian Kingdom, “International Treaties”

lifetime. When Kamehameha V died unexpectedly in 1872, he left no successor and had no heirs. Kamehameha was the last monarch directly descended through the Kamehameha line. Under the constitution, when no successor to the throne was named, a general election was to be held to choose the constitutional monarch from among the

www.abc-clio.com

ali’i. William Lunalilo was elected in 1873 but died just one year later. Although his reign was short, Lunalilo’s government was instrumental in establishing important relationships with the United States. In exchange for duty-free sugar exports to the United States, Hawaii agreed to allow duty-free imports of American products.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

232

Regional Essays

In 1877, David Kalakaua was elected king. King Kalakaua brought about a revival of Hawaiian customs and tried to strengthen Native Hawaiian selfrule. He traveled to the United States, where he met with President Ulysses S. Grant to negotiate a treaty of reciprocity, which continued the duty-free import of sugar and other Hawaiian products in exchange for the exclusive use of Pearl Harbor by the United States. In 1887, a group of Hawaiian citizens, mostly Americans, organized a takeover of the Hawaiian government. Under threat of harm, King Kalakaua was forced to accept a new constitution that dramatically decreased the power of the monarchy and limited suffrage to property owners. Known as the Bayonet Constitution, this action initiated a series of events that would eventually result in Hawaii’s becoming a territory of the United States. Despite organized resistance by Native Hawaiians, the new constitution remained in effect. When David Kalakaua died in 1891, he was succeeded by his sister, Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominic, who became known as Queen Lili’uokalani. The reign of Queen Lili’uokalani was constantly under siege. In January 1893, U.S. military personnel conspired with American landowners to overthrow the government of Hawaii and annex Hawaii to the United States. When a treaty of annexation was forwarded to President Grover Cleveland, he was informed that the overthrow was illegal, and he subsequently withdrew the treaty. When William McKinley was elected president in 1896, a new treaty of annexation was forwarded. Protests submitted by Queen Lili’uokalani and Hawaiian Natives delayed ratification. In 1898, due to the need for a Pacific Ocean military base during the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to annex Hawaii by congressional joint resolution. The treaties between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America were similar to other international treaties the United States entered into during the 1800s. The Article of Agreement of 1826 established peace and friendship between the two nations and allowed U.S. trade into Hawaii. While apparently never ratified as a formal treaty, the Articles of Agreement did establish governmentto-government relations and was respectful of Hawaiian sovereignty. The Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands of 1849 was ratified by the Senate and the president of the United States. This treaty of “friendship, commerce and navigation” allowed duty-free entry of U.S.

www.abc-clio.com

ships, among other provisions, for a period of ten years. The two subsequent treaties were a continuation of the treaties of commerce. The Treaty of Reciprocity of 1875 allowed for the duty-free import of U.S. goods into Hawaii and the duty-free import of Hawaiian goods, most importantly sugar, into the United States for a period of seven years. The treaty of 1875 was extended by the convention in 1884. The treaty of 1884 allowed seven more years to be added to the reciprocal trade between Hawaii and the United States, in addition to granting the United States exclusive use of Pearl Harbor. When Hawaii was annexed in 1898, no provisions were made for Native Hawaiians separately from non-Native residents of the kingdom. Certain rights for Native Hawaiians are written into the state constitution of Hawaii, but a federal relationship like that of Native Americans on the mainland does not exist. The relationship between the U.S. government and Native Hawaiians has always been different from its relationship with other Native peoples. Ever since annexation, there has been a strong Native political movement to return Native Hawaiian sovereignty. Today, several organizations are working toward that goal. On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed Public Law 103–150, the Apology Resolution, which states that Congress “apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii . . . and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.” Daniel L. Boxberger

ABC-CLIO

References and Further Reading Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock. 1996. In the Name of the Salish and Kootenai Indians: The 1855 Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA: Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and Fisheries. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991. “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3): 40–45. Buck, Elizabeth. 1993. Paradise Remade: The Politics of Culture and History in Hawai’i. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Coan, C. F. 1921. “The First Stage of the Federal Indian Policy in the Pacific Northwest, 1849–1852.” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 22 (1): 46–89.

1-800-368-6868

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1929. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

www.abc-clio.com

233

Records Relating to Treaties. “Records of the Proceedings of the Commission to Hold Treaties with the Indian Tribes in Washington Territory and the Blackfoot Country.” File Microcopies of Record in the National Archives: No. 5, Roll 26. Records Relating to Treaties. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Service. Kirch, Patrick V., and Marshall D. Sahlins. 1992. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canada

T T

reaties in Canada can be divided into seven categories according to time, purpose, region, and negotiating parties. These seven categories are French nonaggression pacts, British treaties of peace and friendship, British treaties of neutrality, Hudson’s Bay Company land purchases, Upper Canada land surrenders, the numbered treaties, and contemporary comprehensive and specific claims treaties. The large geographic area that eventually became Canada first was under the colonial rule of France, then of Great Britain. Northern and Pacific coastal regions belonged to a royal charter company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, from 1670 to the mid-nineteenth century. After the 1867 union of four British North American colonies (known as confederation), six other provinces joined, culminating with the adhesion of Newfoundland in 1949. Historically, however, a much vaster area of North America was ruled from Quebec. The colony of New France (1524–1763) was made up of several regions that included a wide range of bands and tribes: the Atlantic coastal region known as Acadia, governed from Port Royal and later Louisbourg; the St. Lawrence valley and Great Lakes region known as Canada, with its “upper country,” governed from Quebec; the Illinois country, which included the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, attached first to Canada and later to Louisiana; Louisiana, which took in a vast area on both sides of the Mississippi, governed from New Orleans; the Mer de l’Ouest (Western Sea), which encompassed all of the northern Great Plains to the foothills of the Rockies, administered from Fort Kaministiquia (Thunder Bay). Much of this continental empire, although under an umbrella of French sovereignty proclaimed against British and Spanish rivals, was inhabited by independent, self-governing Native bands and tribes, many of them formal allies of the French. Apart from a restricted area of French colonization in the St. Lawrence valley between Montreal and Quebec and along the Bay of Fundy in Acadia, French settlements were widely dispersed, largely near trading posts, military forts, and mission stations located throughout the hinterland with specific permission from Native people on their acknowledged territory. The French in Acadia and Canada neither displaced Native inhabitants to make way for European

settlement nor waged war to conquer Native territory. The only displacement of peoples was voluntary, as Iroquoian and Algonkian people, many of them Catholic converts or Abenaki refugees from Maine, came to live on the réductions (later reserves) near Quebec, Trois Rivières, and Montreal. All the bands and tribes were recognized as independent and autonomous, usually allies, and in full possession of their territories. Only the Five Nations Iroquois—under Dutch and, later, English influence— were regarded as enemies until the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701. The few treaties signed with Native peoples were nonaggression pacts. New France passed from French to British rule in 1763. Native possessory rights, as observed under the French regime, were guaranteed by the British Crown by the Royal Proclamation of October 1763. Only the Crown could negotiate the acquisition of land belonging to the Native people, officially designated as their “hunting territories.” This prevented settler encroachment on Native land, dispossession, and frontier violence. The maritime region of French Acadia was claimed and frequently attacked by the English and American colonists. It was therefore not uncommon for them to enter into treaties of peace and friendship, a practice originating with Powhatan in 1608 with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Abenaki bands. Peninsular Acadia (Nova Scotia) was ceded to Britain in 1713. The last treaty of this type was signed in July 1766 with the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibwa, the former Three Fires Confederacy of the Great Lakes region, which was allied to the French. In 1670, a vast northern region inhabited largely by Cree and Ojibwa was granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company by royal charter, for the exploitation of the fur trade. When settlement was planned at Red River (Manitoba) in 1812 and later in British Columbia, Vancouver Island, and Oregon Territory, company officials negotiated land purchase treaties. Following the loss of thirteen of its sixteen North American colonies in 1783, the British were forced to negotiate a series of land surrender treaties in Upper Canada (Ontario) to clear the way for the settlement of refugees from the United States, the United Empire Loyalists, and immigrants from the British Isles. These were remaining lands reserved to the Native population as hunting territories under

235 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

236

Regional Essays

the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Upper Canadian land surrender treaties followed the model developed in Maryland in 1634. This, in fact, relegated Natives to restricted areas known as land reserves. The aboriginal inhabitants in Canada were never considered aliens, and therefore their common designation is now First Nations people. In 1860, Great Britain handed over responsibility for Indian affairs to its several British North American colonies. When Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the United Canadas (Quebec and Ontario) joined in a federal union in 1867, “Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians” were assigned to the federal government in Ottawa. Indian treaties, therefore, given this political evolution over several centuries, could be negotiated by the Crown in the right of France, Great Britain, the distinct colonies, or the Dominion of Canada. The federal government used the constitutional authority defined in the British North America Act, 1867, to negotiate eleven “numbered” treaties of land surrender between 1871 and 1921 with Assiniboine Cree, Sioux, Blackfoot (including Blood and Piegan), Sarcee, Chipewyan, and Athapaskan for most of the western and northern regions that eventually entered the federal union. A final category includes the contemporary comprehensive and specific claims treaties. Treaty making is a continuing process in Canada, especially since the federal government launched a comprehensive and specific claims process in 1973. Comprehensive land claims are negotiated in areas where aboriginal title has not been addressed clearly by treaty or other legal means. Since 1995, an inherent right policy allows simultaneous negotiation for selfgovernment. As most of the lands and resources subject to comprehensive claim negotiations are under provincial jurisdiction, provincial negotiators participate in the negotiation of agreements with aboriginal groups. Specific claims deal with grievances of First Nations about the implementation or interpretation of existing treaties. Treaty rights now belong to inhabitants of reserves, or designated territories, but not to at least half the First Nations people who live in urban centers where no bands or community organizations with treaty rights exist.

no displacement of original inhabitants. Cooperation persisted between indigenous inhabitants and colonists through the fur trade, fishing, and resistance to Iroquois and American incursions. Royal instructions in 1665 stated explicitly that no colonists were to “take the lands on which they [Natives] are living under pretext that it would be better and more suitable if they were [possessed by] French.” Native possessory and territorial rights were acknowledged in the official correspondence by such phrases as “these nations govern themselves” and “they must be deemed free everywhere on their lands.” In 1755, a Ministry of War directive reminded serving officers in the colony, “The natives are jealous of their liberty, and one could not without committing an injustice take away from them the primitive right of property to the Lands on which Providence has given them birth and located them.” The few treaties the French signed with Native peoples were neither land surrenders nor international treaties between sovereign powers belonging to the “family of nations” as understood in European diplomatic circles. The nonaggression treaties of the seventeenth century were all concluded with the Iroquois, who, following Champlain’s participation in an intertribal expedition against the Mohawks in 1609, became hostile toward the colonists. The treaties negotiated were as follows:

The French Nonaggression Treaties The French Crown signed no treaties of land surrender, because limited European settlement required

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1. The Treaty of Trois Rivières, 1645, between Governor Montmagny and Mohawk delegates, ending hostilities and pledging peace 2. The Montreal Conference of 1653, in which the French agreed to remain neutral in the event of an Iroquois attack on the Algonquians and Montagnais 3. The Quebec Agreements of 1665 to 1667 with each of the Five Nations Iroquois, following a French military expedition, restoring peace 4. The Treaty of La Famine, 1684, following a disastrous military expedition led by Governor La Barr against the Seneca, in which the French agreed to remain neutral in the event of war between the Iroquois and the Illinois 5. The Great Peace of Montreal, 1701, a series of agreements between the French, the Five Nations Iroquois, the tribes of the Three Fires Confederacy, the “domiciled” Natives of the Seven Nations of Canada, and the Wabanaki Confederacy, including the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet

1-800-368-6868

Canada

The French were mediators in this general peace and resumption of trade relations, which recognized the Five Nations Iroquois as neutral in international conflicts, a status later confirmed in the international Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. This celebration, held with all the pomp of cross-cultural diplomacy, marked the end of Iroquois-French feuding. This was followed by orders in 1716 to restrict settlement above Montreal and to avoid “war against the Natives which can never have any utility.” It will be noted that the nonaggression treaties often stipulated French neutrality in an intertribal conflict. Nevertheless, the French did not forget their Native allies when forced to capitulate to superior British forces at Montreal in September 1760. The property rights and liberty of these allied nations were specifically protected in Article 40 of the Capitulation of Montreal and reiterated in Article 4 of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, by which Canada became a British colony. It was a well-established principle of international law that the civil rights of subjects acquired by conquest or cession continued in force. In other words, the ancestral rights of Canada’s Native peoples were protected by international treaty in 1763. Not surprisingly, the First Nations were accorded special mention in the subsequent Treaty of Paris (1783), Jay Treaty (1794), and Treaty of Ghent (1815).

The British Treaties of Peace and Friendship In Nova Scotia, occupied in 1710, the British negotiated a number of treaties of peace and friendship with the chiefs of various maritime bands to safeguard incoming settlers and commerce. The first treaties, which included some Maliseet and Mi’kmaq bands, were negotiated in Massachusetts in December 1725 with unspecified “Eastern Indians,” ending Dummer’s War. It provided for “peaceable possession” of their unceded territories and the privilege of “fishing, hunting, and fowling as formerly.” This could be interpreted as the rights they enjoyed under French rule prior to the cession of 1713. Native possession excluded lands “conveyed or sold to or possessed by any of the English subjects.” Treaty 239 was signed with representatives of the St. John and Cape Sable bands. It acknowledged British “jurisdiction and dominion over the territories” and made submission to the Crown “in as ample a manner as we have formerly done to the Most Christian King.” This raised more questions

www.abc-clio.com

237

than it settled. Only a few bands were party to the agreement, and the legitimacy of the Maliseet and Mi’kmaq delegates to make such general agreements remained problematical. Moreover, the provision for continuation of the relationship they had enjoyed under French rule did not ensure much submission. The important understanding was that the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet would not attack Annapolis Royal but would remain neutral in the event of another war with France. In 1727, several other bands adhered to the treaty negotiated two years earlier at a special ceremony at Casco Bay. In 1728, it was deemed necessary for the St. John band to adhere to the treaty of 1725 at a convocation at Annapolis Royal, thereby confirming their neutrality in the event of war between Britain and France. But the Maliseet and Mi’kmaq joined the French in four attacks on Annapolis Royal and other settlements during the War of 1744–1748. Governor Edward Cornwallis decided to exterminate the bands, but orders from London advocated a more conciliatory policy. Peace overtures were made by some Mi’kmaq at Halifax in 1749 and 1752. Jean-Baptiste Cope, selfstyled chief of the Shubenaccadie band, asked for a renewal of treaty terms and payment “for the land the English have settled upon in this country.” On September 15, 1752, the Nova Scotia Council drew up a formal treaty in English and French for Cope to take back to his band; the treaty made no mention of compensation for land taken for settlement. Cope was presented with a golden belt and two lace hats as his reward. He returned with the agreement of his small band, and peace was confirmed on November 24, 1752. But within a year, some English attacked his band. Cope threw his copy of the treaty into the fire, and his warriors killed the crew of a government supply ship. In 1754, French missionaries influenced the Mi’kmaq to present their own peace proposal, which caused the creation of an independent and neutral Mi’kmaq enclave that included most of eastern Nova Scotia and would serve as a buffer between the British on the Bay of Fundy and the French on Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island. The next year, war broke out between Britain and France. Nova Scotian authorities proceeded to deport the Acadian French population to the southern American colonies, depriving the Natives of a valued ally. Following the defeat of the French, a Maliseet delegation came to Halifax to sign a treaty acknowledging British rule,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

238

Regional Essays

accepting blame for having broken the peace, and welcoming a truckhouse on the St. John River. Throughout 1760–1761, various bands of Mi’kmaq made their peace with the British. The final treaty was signed in November 1761 at La Have. With the elimination of a French presence, British authorities concentrated on keeping peace by abiding by treaty terms. In 1762, a government order forbade settlement on or trespass of certain lands claimed by the Native population. In 1778, the Mi’kmaq renounced their alliance with the Americans. At Windsor on September 22, 1779, delegates from the New Brunswick and Gulf of St. Lawrence regions affirmed their loyalty to Britain and promised to win over the Mi’kmaq bands to the British cause. In return, they were promised freedom to hunt and fish without hindrance and the immediate supply of “ammunition, clothing and other necessary stores.” Hunting and fishing rights promised in these treaties have continued to be claimed into the twenty-first century. A Mi’kmaq band in the Miramichi region of the colony of New Brunswick adhered to a treaty of friendship in 1794, in which King George III promised, “[H]enceforth I will provide for you and for the future generation so long as the sun rises and river flows.” By these treaties, most of the maritime band chiefs had recognized a British protectorate without at the same time surrendering lands or other rights.

The British Treaties of Neutrality The Seven Fires or Nations of Canada had been important allies of the French in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. But, as New France’s defenses began to collapse, these allies began to seek amicable agreements with the advancing British forces. Three treaties were negotiated during the closing days of the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War). On August 30, 1760, a treaty was concluded at Oswegatchie, or Fort La Galette, with General Amherst. In effect, the Indians would not assist the French and would not permit the invaders to advance down the St. Lawrence to Montreal. Also, if Canada remained in British hands, they would enjoy the same privileges as “in the time of the French, but still more and greater,” the possession of their lands, their hunting grounds, and the free exercise of the Catholic religion.

www.abc-clio.com

On September 5, the Hurons of Lorette signed a separate treaty at Longueuil with Major General James Murray, by which they were granted safe passage back to their village, amnesty, the free exercise of their religion and customs, and freedom of trade. These treaties were reconfirmed and ratified by William Johnson, superintendent of the Indian Department, at a special congress at the Kahnawake reserve during September 15–16, 1760.

The Hudson’s Bay Company Treaties The Hudson’s Bay Company, a London royal charter company founded in 1670, administered all the lands draining into Hudson Bay, as well as the coastal lands of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, known as the Oregon Territory. In 1812, the company granted the Earl of Selkirk permission to bring settlers to the Red River Valley. To avoid opposition from the Cree and the Saulteaux, Selkirk proposed to purchase a bloc of land in return for “a small annual present, in the nature of a quit rent, or acknowledgment of their right.” The Selkirk treaty was signed on July 18, 1817, granting the local bands two hundred pounds of tobacco annually. When the Canadian government acquired Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories in 1870, the order-in-council stipulated that “any claims of Indians to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian government in communication with the Imperial government; and the company (HBCo) shall be relieved of all responsibility in respect of them. . . .” On Vancouver Island, Governor James Douglas, acting for the Hudson’s Bay Company as well as the crown colony, entered into six land surrender treaties with the Songhees in April 1850, two treaties with the Klallam in May 1850, a treaty with the Sooke in May 1850, two treaties with the Saanich in February 1852, and one treaty in 1854 with the Saalequun tribe. Two further purchases were made, at Fort Rupert in 1851 and Nanaimo in 1854. These fourteen Fort Victoria treaties promised reserve lands for “village sites and enclosed fields,” hunting rights “over the unoccupied lands,” and fishing rights “as formerly.” In return, Douglas paid the least acceptable amount “in woollen goods which they prefer to money.” On the mainland of British Columbia, Douglas asked the various communities to “point out” their

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canada

habitation and hunting territories, which were defined as reserves, but they were offered no treaty protection. British Columbia entered confederation with mainland reserves without treaties.

The Upper Canada Treaties of Land Surrender The Royal Proclamation of 1763 reserved the right of acquisition of Native lands in Upper Canada [Ontario] to the Crown. A series of land surrender treaties were negotiated to open large tracts to settlement by refugees and immigrants. To simplify the complex process, six categories can be discerned. Three treaties were lost or never properly registered: the Collins Purchase along Lake Simcoe, the Oswegatchie lands on the Upper St. Lawrence, and the Crawford Purchase on the north shore of Lake Ontario east of the Trent River. Two surrenders by Mississauga chiefs for the Etobicoke River tract and the southern Lake Simcoe tract were effected by signing blank deeds that were never properly recorded. This was not regularized until 1923 in the Williams treaty. Thirty-seven documented treaties were signed between 1781 and 1836, covering much of the southern region north of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Twenty-four of these provided a payment of a onetime fixed sum to the Mississauga and the Ojibwa. From the ceded lands, two Indian reserves were created for Iroquois Loyalists—the Six Nations Reserve on the Grand River for Joseph Brant’s people and the Bay of Quinte Reserve for John Deserontyon’s people. Some of the treaties lacked precision, such as the Gunshot Treaty (1787), which defined the ceded tract as running back from designated points on Lake Ontario “as far as a gunshot can be heard on a clear day.” After the war of 1812–1814, with tribes demoralized by declining numbers and marginalization in military strategy, seven more land cessions were signed before 1830 to make way for immigrants from the British Isles. The Indians were offered small reserves, fixed annuities, and some farm instructors, blacksmiths, and doctors. The Robinson Superior and the Robinson Huron Treaties in 1850 ceded northern land to gain access to forest reserves, mineral deposits, and transportation corridors along the northern shores of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. The objective was to acquire from the Ojibwa bands twice as much land

www.abc-clio.com

239

as had been ceded in the southern region for as little as possible. The appended schedules of reserves stipulated that title remain vested in the Crown. The annuities were much less than those offered in the southern part of the province, because the land was not judged suitable for agriculture. Two further treaties, involving smaller areas— the Saugeen peninsula and an eastern portion of Manitoulin Island—were signed in 1854 and 1862, respectively, to facilitate exploitation of the Lake Huron fisheries.

The Numbered Treaties Acquisition of land west of Quebec to British Columbia, including the unceded lands of northwestern Ontario and the Great Plains, proceeded by a series of numbered treaties from 1870 to 1929 negotiated by representatives of the government of Canada. Treaty 1, the Stone Fort treaty, negotiated at Fort Garry in 1871, set the pattern for cession of all rights and title in return for annuities in perpetuity and reserves for the Indians’ own use. It covered the fertile lands of the Red River Valley. Treaty 2, also made in 1871, completed the cession of southern Manitoba and granted special gifts for the chiefs and the promise of farm animals and implements when farming was taken up on the reserved land. Treaty 3, the Northwest Angle treaty, negotiated in 1873 with the Ojibwa, covered northwestern Ontario to Lake Superior. It included the Métis in its terms but stipulated that those who received benefits as Indians could not also hold scrip lands under the provisions of the Manitoba Act. The area ceded was crucial to the right-of-way for a transcontinental railway and was of interest to mining and lumbering companies. The chiefs inquired about mineral rights and were told these were held on the reserves by the Crown for their benefit. Treaty 4, negotiated in 1874, provided for the cession of most of the agricultural land of southern Saskatchewan at a time when the bands were facing starvation and had little choice but to accept the reserves and annuities offered them. Hunting and fishing rights were subject to government regulations. Treaty 5, negotiated in 1875, covered north central Manitoba; it included less favorable terms but was signed speedily at the urging of the missionaries, who acted as diplomatic agents.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

240

Regional Essays

Treaty 6, negotiated in 1876 and covering much of what became central Saskatchewan and Alberta, provided for a “medicine chest,” which the Indian agents were to keep available to deal with epidemics or “general famine.” The Plains Cree, in this case, faced starvation and were threatened with withdrawal of government food rations if they did not make treaty. The medicine chest provision has been interpreted as full Medicare coverage (1984) both on and off reserves, including optical and dental care, prescription drugs, and transportation to medical care centers. Treaty 7, negotiated in 1877 in what became southern Alberta, saw the intervention of both missionaries and the Northwest Mounted Police in the negotiation process, inasmuch as they had a direct interest in avoiding discontent and frontier violence. Provision was made for schools, agricultural supplies and implements, and farm instructors, and liquor was prohibited on reserves. The chiefs were now aware that “outside promises,” or verbal promises not specifically written into the treaties, had little validity. Treaty 8, negotiated in 1899 and covering northern Alberta and British Columbia, was the first of the northern resource development treaties to deal with an influx of miners into the Yukon and adjacent areas. Treaty 9, negotiated in 1905, came as a response to Native demands for protection of some of their lands in view of mining developments and railway construction in northern Ontario. It was negotiated jointly by the federal and Ontario provincial governments with Native bands because the province controlled natural resources. Treaty 10, completed in 1906 in northern Saskatchewan, was negotiated solely by the federal government because the province did not yet have jurisdiction over its natural resources. Treaty 11 was made in 1921 following the discovery of oil in the Mackenzie Valley. The Dene obtained a guarantee of complete freedom to hunt, trap, and fish. The building of the Alaska Highway undermined that promise.

Contemporary Agreements The major recent agreements occurred in the early 1970s and continued to be made until the end of the twentieth century.

www.abc-clio.com

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreements were negotiated in 1975 and 1978. In 1971, the Quebec government announced a plan for a massive hydroelectric development involving the diversion of four rivers and dammed reservoirs on La Grande Rivière. Through the courts and the media, the Cree and Inuit of the eastern James Bay region forced the federal and Quebec provincial governments to consider their aboriginal rights. The treaty, negotiated in 1975 and implemented in 1990, provided some exclusive hunting, fishing, and trapping territories for each of the Cree and Inuit, $135 million for the Cree, $90 million for the Inuit (both amounts have been paid in full), an income security program for hunters and trappers, self-government under Quebec’s Cree-Naskapi Act, and participation in an environmental and social protection regime. In 1978, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement amended the James Bay Agreement to provide the Naskapi with comparable benefits. The Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest Territories was completed in 1984. It was the second comprehensive agreement with the 2,500 Inuvialuit of the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea area, renowned for its oil and gas reserves. The agreement provided for a land base, some of which included mineral rights, wildlife harvesting rights, and participation in environmental management, in addition to substantial allocation of funds to an economic enhancement fund and a social development fund. The Dene and Métis Agreements were completed in 1992 and 1994. They were separate regional settlements with the Gwich’in and Sahtu Dene and the Métis of the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories. The agreements provided for land reserves with mineral rights, wildlife harvesting rights, and participation in decision-making bodies dealing with renewable resources, land use, environmental assessment, and regulation of land and water use. The Nunavut Agreement of 1999 resulted from previous dealings. In 1992, the federal government and territorial government of the Northwest Territories agreed on the eventual creation of the selfgoverning Nunavut Territory in the eastern Arctic. The new territory, with a population of just under twenty thousand and its capital at Iqaluit, has a highly decentralized government to respond to the specific needs of its twenty-eight Inuit communities.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canada

The Nisga’a Treaty was completed in 2000. In April 1999, the British Columbia legislature ratified terms of a land settlement with the Nisga’a Tribal Council. The federal parliament passed the necessary legislation a year later, providing for ownership and self-government of about two thousand square kilometers of land in the Nass River Valley and a cash payment of $190 million. It is the first modernday treaty in British Columbia. Cornelius J. Jaenen

References and Further Reading Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from 1680 to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

www.abc-clio.com

241

Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC Studies 3. Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories, Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971. Price, Richard. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties. Edmonton: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.” In History of Indian White Relations, Wilcomb E. Washburn. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Tobias, J. L. 1977. “Indian Reserves in Western Canada.” In Approaches to Indian History in Canada, ed. D. A. Muise. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northeast and the Great Lakes

B B

ecause they resided in regions that from an early period were accessible to Europeans, the tribal people of the Northeast and Great Lakes have a long history of treaty negotiations with the colonial powers and with both state and federal governments. These treaties encompass a broad spectrum of issues, but most focus upon five major themes: they delineate the manner in which formal relations between the governments of European American and Native American communities will be conducted; they establish a formal peace after periods of warfare; they provide for the transfer of land ownership from one community to the other; and they establish procedures through which Native American people were removed from their former homelands to regions farther west. In addition, several of the treaties contain articles that delineate hunting and fishing rights for tribes in the Great Lakes region. Although tribal hunting and fishing rights were not envisioned as a major issue when these treaties were negotiated in the nineteenth century, these rights have emerged as a focal point of controversy for tribal people and non-Indians in the late twentieth century. Many treaties encompass and address more than one of these issues. Unquestionably, the most important series of treaties that delineated and prescribed the relationship between Native American and non-Indian communities in the Northeast was the Covenant Chain. Originating in the aftermath of Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War), the Covenant Chain was forged at a treaty signed in April 1677 at Albany, New York, in which delegates from the Mohawks and the Mahicans (both British allies during the late conflict) met with representatives from New York, Massachusetts Bay, and Connecticut. In the treaty, the British colonies in New England agreed that the colony of New York should be the conduit through which all British “Indian affairs” in the region would be conducted, whereas the Mahicans and Mohawks (and, in turn, the Iroquois Confederacy) would be the negotiating agents for the tribes in the Northeast. As the Mohicans continued to decline in numbers and influence, the Iroquois Confederacy (often led by Mohawk spokespeople) emerged as the dominant Native American entity through which British Indian policy was implemented to neighboring tribes.

During the eighteenth century, as French influence increased in Ohio and western Pennsylvania, the Mohawks were hard pressed to keep other members of the Iroquois Confederacy closely tied to British officials at Albany, and in 1726 the Senecas readily negotiated with the French, permitting French engineers to build Fort Niagara at the mouth of the Niagara River. But the Iroquois used the Covenant Chain agreement to dominate the Delawares and Susquehannas living in Pennsylvania, negotiating with British officials in their behalf and readily surrendering lands that ostensibly belonged to these two tribes in the Delaware and Susquehanna River valleys. When the Delawares protested the sale, the Iroquois informed them that they now were “women” and could no longer speak for themselves in negotiations with the British. The Iroquois forced the Delawares to move to northern and western Pennsylvania, regions abutting Iroquois territories, while the British claimed and occupied the former Delaware lands they had purchased through the Iroquois. By the 1750s, the Covenant Chain lay in disarray as political unity within the Iroquois Confederacy crumbled. Meanwhile, many of the Delawares and associated eastern Algonquian tribes moved to southwestern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, at the very edge of Iroquois (particularly Mohawk) hegemony. Although the Mohawks remained tied to New York, many of the other Iroquois league members periodically negotiated with the French, whereas the Senecas exercised an independent influence (apart from the Mohawks) over the tribes near the forks of the Ohio. In 1753, Theyanoguin (Hendrick), a Mohawk chief, admitted to officials in New York that the Covenant Chain had been broken. Five years later, it was partially reforged when delegates from the Delawares and Iroquois met with officials from the British colonies at Easton in Pennsylvania, and the Delawares agreed to support the British against the French, who had occupied Fort Duquesne (at modern Pittsburgh) and seemed to pose a threat to the Delawares in western Pennsylvania. In exchange for Iroquois support, the Delawares reluctantly agreed to allow the Iroquois again to exercise some control over their diplomacy. The French withdrew from Fort Duquesne, but when the British occupied the post, the Delawares charged

243 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

244

Regional Essays

that they again had been betrayed, and the renewed Covenant Chain finally ended. The Covenant Chain, which originally had shaped diplomacy between Native Americans and Europeans in the northeastern United States, emerged from a series of treaties that had ended a period of significant military conflict: Metacom’s War. Other treaties during the colonial and Early National Period that also terminated periods of warfare had a significant impact upon both Native American and non-Indian people. The most important of these colonial peace treaties in the Great Lakes region was the intertribal treaty associated with the Great Peace of 1701. Since the middle of the seventeenth century, the Iroquois Confederacy had warred intermittently with both the French and their Indian allies from the western Great Lakes. Initially, the Iroquois had been successful, driving many tribes, such as the Miamis, Sauks, and Potawatomis, from their homelands in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio into Wisconsin. Because the warfare disrupted the fur trade, the French had assisted the western tribespeople, providing them with arms, ammunition, and other military assistance. By the 1690s, however, the tide of warfare had turned; the Iroquois had overextended themselves, and the western tribesmen struck back. Joined by French troops, they carried the conflict to the Seneca homeland, and during the 1690s the Iroquois sent envoys to Montreal to ask for a peace. French officials initially refused, but the western tribes also sought peace, so in 1699–1700 Louis-Hector de Callieres met with small delegations from several tribes, inviting them to reassemble in the summer of 1701 to negotiate a “lasting” peace between both sides. More than 1,300 Indians, both Iroquois and allies of New France, assembled at Montreal in July and August 1701. The treaty proceedings reflected both the French desire for intertribal peace and their knowledge that Native American diplomacy was surrounded by elaborate ceremony. Delegations from both the Iroquois and the western tribes arrived by canoe and were saluted by salvos of cannon fire. They walked up from the river bank on broad red carpets, met under canopies of evergreen boughs, and were wined and dined on brandy and boiled oxen. French officials and tribal spokesmen alike dressed in their finest clothing and delivered formal speeches before throngs of assembled warriors, French citizens, and soldiers. After speeches, negotiations, and ceremonies lasting more than three weeks, both sides agreed to return all their captives

www.abc-clio.com

and to live in peace. French officials and tribal leaders affixed their names or clan totems on the treaty document on August 5, 1701. The Great Peace of 1701 marked a turning point in the history of the Great Lakes region. In a tacit acknowledgement that their military and political power was finite, the Iroquois pulled back from their expansion into the western Great Lakes. The Senecas continued to exercise a limited hegemony over western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, but the peace also illustrated that western members of the Iroquois Confederacy, particularly the Senecas, had adopted a realpolitik approach to the French and were willing to come to terms with French military power if necessary. In contrast, the Mohawks, still staunchly allied through the Covenant Chain to New York, refused to attend the proceedings. Obviously, the Iroquois Confederacy was split by this treaty, and although the Mohawks grudgingly accepted it, the myth of Iroquois unity and loyalty to the British had been shattered. The treaty also provided renewed opportunities for the western tribes. Ostensibly at peace with the Iroquois, tribes such as the Miamis, Shawnees, and Miamis who had fled to Illinois or Wisconsin now returned to their old homes in Ohio and Michigan. At first, the French welcomed their reoccupation of these regions, but their rebuilt villages soon became targets for British merchants eager to envelop them in the growing network of a British trade offensive. These tribespeople welcomed cheaper British trade goods, but French officials feared the political ties that such economic dependency might engender among these tribes. Finally, the festivities surrounding the Great Peace of 1701 were characteristic of major treaty negotiations during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Tribal people expected treaties to be negotiated amid considerable feasting, ceremony, and presents. Unquestionably, the French were more lavish in their treaty making than the British. Throughout the eighteenth century, in contrast, the British remained relatively parsimonious in their distribution of food and presents at such occasions, a practice that did not bode well for their relationship with the Great Lakes Indians. Ironically, after 1783, the Americans learned from the French example. American leaders were quite willing to disburse food, drink, and presents, particularly if they were trying to purchase land from the Native Americans. The second major treaty that established peace between tribal people in the Northeast and the Great

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northeast and the Great Lakes

Lakes region and Europeans or Americans was the Treaty of Greenville. Signed in 1795, the Treaty of Greenville ended almost half a century of internecine warfare between Indian people, the colonial powers, and, finally, the new United States. Throughout much of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the western Iroquois and Ohio tribes had successfully played off the British and French, periodically shifting their allegiance from one side to the other to prevent either colonial power from achieving sufficient power to dominate the Ohio Valley and Lake Erie region. Although the British had vanquished the French during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), tribespeople remained a significant military and political power in the region and during the British attempt to enforce new trade regulations in the conflict’s aftermath. Native Americans had risen during Pontiac’s Revolt (1763) and had forced British officials to reconsider their Indian policies. A decade later, when colonial settlers from Virginia attempted to occupy Kentucky, the Shawnees and Mingoes rebelled against colonial authority, and, although they had been beaten in Lord Dunsmore’s War (1774), they remained a significant factor in any attempts to control the upper Ohio Valley. When the Crown and the colonists went to war in the American Revolution, the Ohio tribes sided with the British, renewed their attacks upon Kentucky, and fought the Americans to a standstill. Yet at the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution (and which was not signed by Native Americans), Britain officially acknowledged American control over the Ohio Valley, and the tribes felt betrayed. When the Americans attempted to occupy the region, Miamis, Shawnees, and other tribes opposed their entrance, attacking settlers and inflicting decisive defeats upon two American armies (Harmar’s defeat, 1790; St. Clair’s defeat, 1791) before suffering a major setback at the Battle of Fallen Timbers (August 1794). In the aftermath of Fallen Timbers, the tribes were forced to sign the Treaty of Greenville, in which they acknowledged federal control over the region (see next paragraph) and agreed to remain at peace with the Americans. The Treaty of Greenville was the death knell for Native American political autonomy in the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes region. Although many midwestern tribespeople would support Tecumseh’s and the Shawnee Prophet’s effort to defend Indian lands and autonomy in the years preceding the War of 1812, the Shawnee brothers’ movement was doomed to failure. By 1812, newly settled Americans

www.abc-clio.com

245

in the region so outnumbered the tribespeople and their reluctant British allies that Tecumseh and his followers had little chance of success. Moreover, significant numbers of Indians (including many Shawnees) sided with the federal government against the Shawnee war chief. The treaty and its aftermath marked a significant turning point for Indian people in the Great Lakes region. In many ways, the Treaty of Greenville also exemplified those treaties that transferred lands from Indian people to Europeans or Americans. Treaties enabling such transactions started early in the colonial period. Often associated with the termination of warfare, they were characterized by Native Americans losing significant areas of lands and agreeing to occupy small, restricted regions within their former homelands. The Treaty of Hartford, which ended the Pequot War in 1638, transferred Pequot lands to the British and assigned those Pequots not sold into slavery to two small village sites; the Treaty of Albany, signed in 1677, not only established the Covenant Chain (discussed previously) but also provided for the formal consignment of former tribal lands to the British. Other land treaties were conducted during periods of relative peace but also were fraught with coercion. The most famous of these took place in 1734— the notorious Walking Purchase, through which the Delawares surrendered a large tract of land in eastern Pennsylvania. During the early 1700s, officials in Pennsylvania repeatedly had attempted to purchase Delaware lands in the Delaware Valley, but the Delawares steadfastly had refused to sell. Because the Delawares were enmeshed in the Covenant Chain, the Pennsylvanians then went to the Iroquois, who supposedly spoke for the Delawares, and purchased small tracts of Delaware land from the confederacy. But as growing numbers of recently arrived Scotch-Irish settlers moved into Pennsylvania, the colony’s demands for Indian lands increased, and in 1734 colonial officials produced a forged document in which they claimed that in 1700 the Delawares had agreed to sell to Pennsylvania all the land west of the Delaware River that a man could walk across in a day and half. Delaware leaders protested that they had never signed such an agreement, but in 1734 Pennsylvania hired two specially trained colonists to walk as far and as fast as possible. The two men walked continually but in relays, and they covered almost sixty-five miles. When the colony’s surveyors finished with their measurement, Pennsylvania claimed that the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

246

Regional Essays

Delawares had relinquished almost 1,200 square miles. The Delawares protested, but the Iroquois interceded on the colonists’ behalf, and the lands passed into the hands of Pennsylvania. The Walking Purchase provides an interesting case study of another facet of treaties and land purchases in the northeast: the sale of Native American lands by tribes having little claim to the region. Several tribes participated in this dubious practice, but the Iroquois were particularly vulnerable to such charges. Not only were their claims to eastern Pennsylvania certainly questionable, but the confederacy also readily sold land in Ohio and Kentucky. Two treaties signed at Fort Stanwix provide good case studies. In 1768, the Iroquois, claiming to speak for the Shawnees and Cherokees as well as the Delawares, signed a treaty at Fort Stanwix in Pennsylvania in which they ceded to the British these tribes’ claims to much of Kentucky. Iroquois claims to the region were spurious, and none of the three tribes whom the Iroquois supposedly represented were notified of the negotiations prior to the treaty signing. Incensed, both the Cherokees and Shawnees denounced the agreement, and when British colonists attempted to occupy the region, the Shawnees struck back, eventually triggering Lord Dunmore’s War, a precursor to the American Revolution in the region. At the second Treaty of Fort Stanwix, signed in 1784 at the same location, the Iroquois also gave up all their claims to lands west of Pennsylvania (Ohio), a region over which their claim and control in the post-revolutionary period were tenuous, at best. Ironically, by 1784, Iroquois influence in Ohio had so diminished that the western tribes scoffed at the agreement, and even federal officials who had negotiated the purchase admitted that they knew they would be forced to also purchase Ohio from other tribes. They soon attempted to do so, but again they negotiated with tribes or tribal leaders who had no authority to cede the region. Intent on clearing Indian title from Ohio, in 1785 (Treaty of Fort McIntosh) and 1786 (Treaty of Fort Finney), federal officials negotiated two treaties with tribes from Detroit or with Shawnee and Wyandot tribesmen who had no authority to make such agreements. The treaties supposedly surrendered tribal control of lands in eastern Ohio, but they were denounced by most Native Americans in Ohio and only increased their determination to form a multitribal confederacy in opposition to further land sales and any American attempt to occupy lands north of the Ohio River. In

www.abc-clio.com

1788, federal officials again attempted to lure tribal leaders to renewed negotiations, but the resulting Treaty of Fort Harmar was a farce. John Heckewelder, a Moravian missionary who attended the proceedings, commented that the treaty signatures did not include “the name of even one Great Chief,” while George Morgan, an American Indian agent, admitted, “Few of the natives attended and none were fully represented; here the treaty was negotiated . . . in the French language through a Canadian interpreter who had to guess at the meaning for he can neither speak or write the language as to make himself understood in any matter of that importance.” Native American rejection of these treaties and their determination to retain Ohio led to the border warfare that raged through the early 1790s. In 1794 at Fallen Timbers, the Americans finally gained the upper hand, and the subsequent Treaty of Greenville (discussed previously) formally marked the cessation of hostilities. The treaty also contained one of the most important Native American land cessions in American history. At Greenville, the twelve tribes in attendance not only relinquished their claims to all lands in southern and eastern Ohio but also agreed to the construction of American forts at strategic locations (Fort Wayne, Chicago, Peoria, etc.) within their remaining homelands. Anthony Wayne, who led the American negotiators, promised that the government would protect the tribes within their remaining territories, but American settlers violated the new boundary lines before they could even be surveyed, and white hunters repeatedly crossed over onto Indian lands to kill game and run trap lines. As American settlement spread into Illinois, Indiana, and northern Ohio, federal officials admitted that Native Americans were being subjected to “injustices and wrongs of the most provoking character, . . . they are abused, cheated, robbed, plundered, and murdered at pleasure.” Between 1795 and 1809, federal negotiators conducted sixteen additional treaties with tribes in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Led by William Henry Harrison, the governor of Indiana Territory, the government obtained the acreages on a piecemeal basis, buying smaller tracts from cooperative leaders among the individual bands or tribes. On some occasions, tribal claims overlapped, and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northeast and the Great Lakes

the government was forced to purchase the same lands from different tribal communities. The loss of lands alienated many more traditional tribespeople, and by 1808 they had rallied to Tecumseh and his brother, the Shawnee Prophet, who opposed the land sales and denounced those chiefs who sold the lands as traitors. In 1809, after Harrison had purchased much of southern Indiana from friendly chiefs at the Treaty of Fort Wayne, he was confronted by Tecumseh, who warned Americans not to occupy the recently ceded territories. Land cession treaties in this region ceased for almost a decade, as both sides became embroiled in the War of 1812, but following the conflict white settlement poured into the region, and the government renewed its purchases. During the next thirty years, federal officials met repeatedly with tribal leaders and acquired almost all of the remaining agricultural lands in the Old Northwest. Vast tracts of Illinois, Indiana, southern and central Michigan and Wisconsin, and northwestern Ohio passed into government hands. Yet many of the treaties marking the transfer of these lands reflected the growing sophistication of the tribes who negotiated with the United States. Leaders among the Potawatomis and Miamis bargained aggressively with federal agents and secured numerous small plots of land (usually between one and two square miles in area) for individual Indians or for chiefs of tribal villages set aside within the purchased territories. These small reserves often were located at strategic locations (crossroads, fords across streams, mill sites, or fertile bottomlands) which continued to serve as residential regions for tribespeople who remained within their old homelands. For example, in a treaty signed with federal agents on September 27, 1832, Potawatomi leaders ceded a large tract of land in northern Indiana and southern Michigan, but only after federal officials had agreed to establish eightyeight separate individual or village reservations totaling more than 101,000 acres. Miami land cession treaties signed in 1826 and 1835 contain similar provisions. Ironically, as the ceded lands filled with American settlers, the real estate value of these small remaining reserves appreciated. American land speculators clamored for the sale of the remaining lands, while federal officials were dismayed that the reserves provided a haven for those tribespeople who resisted the government’s efforts to remove the Indians to the West. Yet when federal agents attempted to purchase the remaining reserves, they

www.abc-clio.com

247

found that their Indian owners were aware of the lands’ new market value and demanded an increased price. Most of these reserves eventually were sold, but their owners received a handsome price. Some of these recipients then left for the West, but others, usually people of mixed Native American-European lineage, remained in the Midwest, where they settled among remaining Indian communities in Wisconsin or Michigan, or joined with other Indian people and “hid in plain sight” amid the general American population in the region. Not all the land ceded by Native Americans in the Northeast after 1783 was ceded to the federal government; some land initially was ceded or sold to private companies or states. Although the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 forbade tribes from selling land to any entity other than the federal government, in 1794 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts purchased about twelve million acres from the Pasamaquoddy and Penoboscot tribes. The lands were contained within the modern boundaries of the state of Maine, which remained part of Massachusetts prior to becoming a separate state. Because the federal government had never consented to the sale of the lands, in the 1970s the two tribes forced the federal government to reluctantly sue the state of Maine for the return of the land, as the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the federal government maintained a trust relationship for the two tribes and was responsible for the tribes’ welfare. Litigation of the case, which extended through the late 1970s, threatened to cloud the legal title to real estate holdings in Maine and prevent the state from issuing bonds. The Carter administration intervened, and Congress passed the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, which awarded the tribes $27 million and created a $54 million fund to finance additional land purchases by these Indians. In the mid-1820s, the sale of tribal lands by Seneca leaders to the Ogden Land Company, a private firm in New York, also violated the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, but the Senate refused to ratify the agreements, and a later legal challenge similar to the claims case in Maine was averted. After 1830, almost all the treaties negotiated by the tribes residing in Illinois, Indiana, and southern Michigan and Wisconsin focused on the tribes’ removal from these areas and their relocation to new homes, either in northern regions of Wisconsin or Michigan or to new lands in the West. Indeed, provisions for Indian removal, usually absent from or

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

248

Regional Essays

peripheral to land cession treaties prior to the 1820s, became a focal point for negotiations in the following decade. The treaties providing for the removal of the Great Lakes tribes followed a format similar to other removal treaties of the era. After ceding the final portions of their homeland, the tribes usually agreed to assemble within six to twelve months at an embarkation camp, where they would join federal removal agents and government contractors employed to provide them with food and other provisions for their journey to the West. Most removals were scheduled to begin in the early fall, when the summer heat had subsided, newly harvested foodstuffs were available, and rivers were sufficiently low to make then readily fordable. Wagons usually were provided for at least a portion of the tribespeople’s belongings and to transport the ill, the elderly, or those tribespeople who needed assistance. Sometimes horses were furnished to some of the Indian emigrants, but often they were expected to make the trek westward on foot. The removal party, accompanied by their contractors and agents, camped each night along the route, sometimes near frontier settlements where additional food or supplies were purchased. If things went as planned, the removal party would reach their new homes in the West (usually western Iowa, Kansas, or Indian Territory) late in the fall but before winter arrived. The treaty signed by the Senecas (and Cayugas) residing near Sandusky, Ohio, in 1831 provides a good case study. At the treaty, the Senecas ceded their remaining lands along the Sandusky River to the United States. In exchange, the government awarded the tribe lands in Indian Territory, promised the tribe that they would “be removed in a convenient and suitable manner,” and agreed to support the tribe for one year in the West. Federal officials also promised to help them erect houses and establish farms, furnish them with livestock and farm utensils, and provide them with a blacksmith, a gristmill, and a sawmill. In addition, tribal leaders were furnished with presents, and federal agents assured them that all future annuities would be paid to them at their new home in the West. Obviously, from the government’s perspective, the treaty was designed to lure the Sandusky Senecas from Ohio to the West. As with many other removal treaties, the actual removal that resulted from the 1831 Sandusky Seneca treaty did not go as planned. The removal was scheduled for September 1, 1831, but due to

www.abc-clio.com

bureaucratic bickering the Indians did not depart until early October. One party traveled to Dayton, then was carried by barges and steamboats to St. Louis, where they disembarked, then marched to the Cuivre River in eastern Missouri, where they spent the winter. The second party traveled overland but proceeded no farther than the Muncie, Indiana, region, where, short of food and blankets, they were abandoned by their removal agent and spent a miserable winter among the Delawares. In May 1832, the Senecas and Cayugas from Indiana joined their kinsmen on the Cuivre River, but as the combined parties of emigrants journeyed toward Indian Territory, they were plagued with measles and were forced to wait for days before ferries could carry them across the flooded Missouri and Grand rivers. Their ranks were decimated by exhaustion and disease, but they finally reached Indian Territory on July 4, 1832, six months after their projected arrival date. In retrospect, most of the removal treaties combined a curious mixture of well-intentioned altruism with political opportunism. Unquestionably, some American reformers believed that, if tribal people removed west of the Mississippi, they could be isolated from alcohol and corrupting influences in American society, but the removal treaties also were motivated by frontier politicians who simply wanted access to Indian lands. Moreover, regardless of the motivation, most removals were conducted amid so much fraud and corruption that the tribespeople who participated in them suffered considerably. Tribes from the Great Lakes region probably suffered less than the Cherokees or Choctaws, but hundreds died during the removal process. The Potawatomis, in particular, still remember their removal from northern Indiana to eastern Kansas in the fall of 1838 as “the Trail of Death.” Several treaties signed between tribes residing in Michigan and Wisconsin that ceded lands to the government also contained clauses that engendered considerable controversy in the final decades of the twentieth century. For example, in treaties signed with federal officials in 1837, 1842, and 1854, Ojibwe leaders relinquished control of large acreages in these states, but the treaties stated that “the privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers, and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.” Initially, this provision engendered little attention, but as tourism and recreational

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northeast and the Great Lakes

hunting and fishing grew in importance during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, state governments in both Michigan and Wisconsin began to restrict the rights of Native Americans to hunt and fish, both on and off their established reservations. In 1879, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans were subject to state laws on their reservations, including laws governing game and fisheries, and in 1899 the state required Indians to purchase hunting licenses. In 1908, the Wisconsin Supreme Court (State v. Morrin) ruled that all “off-reservation rights” of Indians in the state had been abrogated in 1848 when Wisconsin became a state. Ojibwe hunters and fishermen periodically “violated” the state’s restrictions, and their activities attracted the attention of state game wardens, but most of their hunting or fishing took place on reservation lands until the late 1960s and generally was ignored by non-Indians. In contrast, during the 1970s many Ojibwes in Michigan and especially Wisconsin began to hunt and fish “out of season” on nonreservation land. They were prosecuted, but in 1983 the U.S. court of appeals ruled in LCO v. Voigt that the State of Wisconsin must negotiate with the tribes to clarify the specific hunting and fishing rights of the Ojibwes. The state reluctantly agreed, and the Indians were allowed to spearfish for walleyed pike in off-reservation waters. The resulting reassertion of Native American hunting and (particularly) fishing rights resulted in the Walleye War, a series of confrontations between Indians and non-Indians in Wisconsin and Michigan that has continued into the twenty-first century.

www.abc-clio.com

249

In retrospect, treaties between Native American people and European, colonial, or federal governments have markedly affected the course of history in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. These treaties have shaped the lives of Native American people, but they also continue to shape the relationship between Native Americans and non-Indians. R. David Edmunds References and Further Reading American State Papers, Indian Affairs. 1832. 2 vols. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jennings, Francis. 1984. Ambiguous Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Treaties With the English Colonies; Its Beginnings to the Lancaster Treaty of 1744. New York: Norton. Kappler, Charles J., comp. and ed. 1972. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Mattituck, NY: Amereon House. (Orig. pub in 1903). Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for Ojibwe Spearfishing and Treaty Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Richter, Daniel, and James Merrell, eds. 1987. Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their Neighbors in Indian North America, 1600–1800. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Satz, Ronald. 1975. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. White, Richard. 1991. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics, 1650–1815. New York: Cambridge University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northern Plains

T T

reaty making in the northern Great Plains region of the United States has a long, fascinating, and ultimately disturbing history that begins with the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804–1806 and ends with the federal government’s unethical abrogation, or abandonment, of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 in 1877. Between 1804 and 1871, when Congress rejected formal treaty making, Indian peoples of the northern plains restructured their political organizations to negotiate with the increasingly powerful U.S. government and fought to retain their national sovereignty—and, ultimately, their future as individual nations of people, as Sioux or Arapaho or Blackfeet, with distinct cultural traditions. In the midst of great demographic, cultural, and economic change, treaties became the principal vehicle for securing and maintaining peace and friendship between American officials and Indian leaders to allow for peaceful trade relations. Although treaties embedded Native Americans’ political culture in a framework of European American legal and diplomatic principles, scholar Maureen Konkle notes that they signified “the autonomy of Native political formations and the equality of those political entities to other political entities and of Native peoples to other peoples” (Konkle 2004, 5). The tragic story of violence on the northern plains that unfolded between the 1850s and 1870s is in large measure the story of the breakdown of this spirit of friendship, reciprocity, and equality established in the early 1800s. Because the treaty-making process is in many ways based on a foundation of cultural interactions, it is helpful to begin the story of the northern plains in the early years of the United States, especially during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, as his vision and his policies helped to shape the negotiations that led to a series of treaties between Native Americans and white Americans and redefined the geography of the United States in the midnineteenth century. After the American Revolution ended, American politicians came to understand that violence on the western frontier resulted largely from a steadily encroaching stream of American settlers. These federal officials also believed that extinction of Native Americans was possible under such conditions unless the Indians made an effort to adopt elements

of white “civilization.” Civilization was, in fact, the word used, set off against the stages of “savagery” and “barbarism” that were part of the vocabulary of Enlightenment-era conceptions of racial difference. Contained within this idea was the notion that Native Americans had the capacity to rise above their “savage” or “barbarous” condition and achieve the state of civilization. In an effort to reduce frontier conflict and thus the chance of continual war, the federal government assumed control of negotiating with Indian nations and wrote into its treaties provisions for “civilization” programs. The Treaty of Holston of 1791, signed with the Cherokee of the Southeast, included the following passage: “That the Cherokee nation may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters, the United States will furnish the said nation with useful implements of farming” (Perdue and Green 1995, 11). The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 extended this program to all Indian nations, setting in motion the civilization program, which eventually grew to include educational and religious instruction; the civilization program would remain at the heart of federal Indian policy into the twentieth century. At the same time, federal officials believed that Native Americans would have to sell much of their territory to meet white settlers’ constant demand for land. Helping Native Americans become “civilized” would enable them to remain on their homelands, shrunken but intact, with the eventual goal of shedding their Indian skin for American citizenship. This set of ideas gave rise to the notion of American expansion with honor. In short, expansion was inevitable, a notion that eventually grew into the idea of Manifest Destiny, which was used to justify the conquest of the American West; it was preordained that white Christians would expand west across the country and “be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the Earth.” Whether it would happen honorably, without tainting the new American nation’s Christian conscience, would depend on whether or not the Indians embraced “civilization.” As president, Thomas Jefferson expanded the federal civilization program and supported the factory system developed under George Washington, a system of government-managed trading posts in

251 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

252

Regional Essays

which federal agents regulated prices to minimize antagonism between white traders and Indian trappers. After Jefferson negotiated the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France, the United States found itself with an enormous territory, roughly one million square miles, which stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and northward from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. Jefferson sent his personal secretary, Meriwether Lewis, to explore this new territory, including the northern plains, in order to establish diplomatic relations with Indian groups living within it and to facilitate the spread of the civilization program to them. On May 14, 1804, the expedition, led by Lewis and his good friend William Clark, left St. Louis. After traveling nearly eight thousand miles over two years, Lewis and Clark returned with extensive knowledge of the geography and the Indian peoples of the American West. Their route followed the Missouri River north from St. Louis into what became the states of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and northern Wyoming, bringing them into contact with most of the major tribal groups of the northern plains, which include the various divisions of the Sioux of South and North Dakota, the Blackfeet, Flathead, and Crow of Montana, the Shoshone (Snake) and Arapaho of Wyoming, the Mandan and Hidatsa of North Dakota, and the Northern Cheyenne of South Dakota and Wyoming. Lewis and Clark brought dozens of medals to award to Native leaders. Their goal was not only to establish diplomatic relations but to reshape the very political structure of Native American society by creating different ranks of “chiefs,” who, by accepting the medals, would accept the supreme authority of the United States as the “Great Father” of the northern plains and of the American West in general. Lewis and Clark also arranged for a delegation of Native leaders to visit the president of the United States, the “Great Father.” In 1806, Jefferson addressed a visiting delegation of tribes from the Missouri River region, explaining that, as France, England, and Spain had agreed to “retire from all the country which you & we hold between Canada & Mexico,” that the Americans “are now your fathers” (Jefferson’s Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs, January 4, 1806). He told them of his plans to expand the factory system to facilitate the expansion of the fur trade into the American West. Trade would benefit all parties, he told them, but only if peaceful relations were maintained:

www.abc-clio.com

You are all my children, and I wish you to live in peace & friendship with one another as brethren of the same family ought to do. If you will cease to make war on one another, if you will live in friendship with all mankind, you can employ all of your time in providing food & clothing for yourselves and you families. . . . Your numbers will be increased, instead of diminishing, and you will live in plenty & in quiet. (ibid.) But he also warned them of Americans’ power, both their strength in numbers and their weapons: “My children, we are strong, we are numerous as the stars in the heavens, & we are all gun-men.” Responding to Jefferson’s speech, leaders of the Osage, Missouri, Oto, Pani, Cansa, Ayowai, and Sioux Nations accepted U.S. authority, promised peace and friendship, but also asserted their right to defend themselves from violent white settlers if the “Great Father” did not use his power wisely and fairly: You say that you are numerous as the stars in the skies, & as strong as numerous. So much the better, fathers, tho’, if you are so . . . you may tell to your white Children on our lands, to follow your orders, & do not as they please, for they do not keep your word. . . . Our hearts are good, though we are powerfull & strong, & we know how to fight, we do not wish to fight but shut the mouth of your Children who speak war, stop the arm of those who rise the tomahawk over our heads and Crush those who strike first, then we will Confess that we have good fathers who wish to make their red Children happy and peace maintained among them. For when we are at peace . . . , our wives and Children Do not stand in want. In Jefferson’s speech and in these Native leaders’ response, we can find the major themes of U.S.Native American diplomatic relations in the nineteenth century. And it is within this general framework of diplomatic relations that the history of treaty making with Native Americans of the northern plains evolves. From the perspective of the U.S. government, Indians needed to allow settlement and trade to proceed without Indian resistance. From the Native American perspective, peace was impossible unless the federal government used its power to compel its “white children” to honor the agreements

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northern Plains

of the “Great Father.” It was the “white children” who raised the tomahawk and struck against Native Americans, initiating a cycle of violence in which Native Americans retaliated in defense, which triggered a more violent response from U.S. troops. When Lewis and Clark entered the northern plains, they encountered a world that was undergoing rapid change. The expansion of trade between Native groups and Europeans in the late eighteenth century had engendered several major changes. Trade spread disease, particularly smallpox, which devastated the Native nations of the northern plains. The smallpox epidemics of 1779–1781 and 1801–1802 led to extraordinary death rates among the Arikara, Mandan, Hidatsa, Shoshone, and other groups of the northern plains, making them vulnerable to incursions from more nomadic groups, such as the Sioux, who quickly became the dominant force on the plains. Competition of Native groups with the Sioux for trade and for survival helped to militarize the plains, leading to the increased use of horses and guns, remaking Native American societies in the process. American traders in great numbers pushed into the Missouri River basin of the northern plains after the Lewis and Clark expedition. Although the Sioux, in particular, welcomed the trade, other tribes did not and created barriers to the expansion of American fur traders based in St. Louis, which led to clashes between federal troops and nations such as the Arikara. At the behest of Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benson, Congress developed a new initiative to create stability and promote expansion, especially on the northern plains. The Act of May 25, 1824, authorized the president of the United States to make “treaties of trade and friendship with the Indian tribes beyond the Mississippi” (Prucha 2000, 38). The diplomatic effort targeted the upper Missouri River region, where much of the fur trade was concentrated. Federal agents were to make treaties with as many Indian nations as possible and to designate specific sites where federal officials could regulate trade between white traders and Native trappers, in a sense continuing the old factory system while abandoning federal control over prices. As a result, a new pair of Americans, Brigadier General Henry Atkinson and U.S. Indian agent Major Benjamin O’Fallon, ventured forth, as had Lewis and Clark twenty years earlier, to redefine federal-Indian relations through the written instrument of the treaty. On this 1825 expedition, however, Atkinson and Fallon were accompanied by 476 troops, a show

www.abc-clio.com

253

of force designed to demonstrate to Native Americans that the United States was the dominant power in the region and that resistance would be met with resolve. The Atkinson and Fallon mission resulted in the signing of a series of treaties that framed Indianwhite diplomatic relations in the northern plains before the advent of the California gold rush triggered a new round of white settlement, Indian-white conflict, and treaty making. In August 1825, Atkinson and O’Fallon negotiated treaties with the Crow, Mandan, Oto and Missouri, Arikara, Chayenne (Cheyenne), Pawnee, and Sioux. Importantly, the American negotiators had written the treaties in advance. Thus, the treaties themselves were not the product of a negotiation between two parties but Native Americans’ acceptance of the Americans’ explanation of the treaty terms in combination with a gift of trade goods. As an example of these meetings, the Crow gathered with Atkinson and Fallon in a Hidatsa town on the Missouri River on August 3, 1825, eight days after receiving an invitation to meet with them. A large group of Crow, led by Red Plume, arrived in the town to negotiate with the Americans. However, a separate group of Crow refused to acknowledge American sovereignty or accept American gifts; tribal divisions would become common in the nineteenth century, as some Native American factions grew to distrust the U.S. government’s intentions, a distrust aggravated by that government’s failures to honor previous treaties. On August 4, Red Plume and other Crow chiefs in attendance signed the treaty and accepted the Americans’ gift of trade goods. But trouble developed when the Americans made additional demands on the Crow delegation that were not specified in the treaty, which insulted Red Plume and other Crow, who believed that the negotiations had ended. Violence was narrowly averted. The following day, the American delegation made amends by providing more gifts. The incident demonstrated the ways in which Native groups such as the Crow had to conform to the new political and economic realities of the northern plains. As the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho had grown stronger and more capable of expansion by forging extensive trading links with Americans, nations such as the Crow had to keep pace by remaining within the orbit of American traders in order to secure guns and other tools with which to resist incursion onto their lands by white settlers as well as other Native groups. Thus, as historian Frederick Hoxie relates,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

254

Regional Essays

the Red Plume delegation resolved that “their wounds were covered and they would throw all that had passed behind them” (Hoxie 1995, 65). The insult was forgotten in the interest of preventing violence and preserving trade relations integral to the Crow Nation’s survival. The treaties of August 1825 were virtually identical in language and in scope. The treaty that the Crow signed on August 4, for example, contained the following: It is admitted by the Crow tribe of Indians, that they reside within the territorial limits of the United States, acknowledge their supremacy, and claim their protection.—The said tribe also admit the right of the United States to regulate all trade and intercourse with them. . . . The United States agrees to receive the Crow tribe of Indians into their friendship, and under their protection, and to extend to them, from time to time, such benefits and acts of kindness as may be convenient, and seem just and proper to the President of the United States. The Crow, as well as the Sioux and other Native groups that signed similar treaties in August 1825, accepted American supremacy, at least on paper, and granted to the United States the authority to regulate trade. They also agreed to work within a European American framework of justice, which required Native leaders, in the event of a “crime,” to “deliver up the [Native] person or persons against whom the complaint is made, to the end that he or they may be punished, agreeably to the laws of the United States” (ibid.). Thus, the treaties not only circumscribed the place where economic relations would be conducted but undermined Native Americans’ sovereignty, their ability to define justice within their own territories. For the Crow, especially, but also for other Native groups, 1825 marked an end to their isolation and the beginning of increasingly complex relations with the United States: territorial boundaries were established, social behavior was defined, and economic relations were regulated in accordance with the imperatives of powerful white traders. It remained to be seen, however, whether or not Native Americans would continue to accept the terms of these new intercultural relations. As the group of chiefs had told Jefferson in 1806, it was incumbent upon the “Great Father” to prevent his many “white children” from raising the tomahawk and instigating violence that prompted Native

www.abc-clio.com

Americans to exercise sovereignty and defend themselves. After the gold rush of 1848–1849 triggered massive waves of white settlers, this effort to reduce violence and maintain justice became problematic. In 1848, when Mexico finally gave up its claim to U.S. land north of its current border, the United States controlled all land westward from the Rockies to the Pacific Coast, as well as territory that stretched from the Rio Grande River north to the 49th parallel. The gold rush in California accelerated the process of frontier settlement. Between 1850 and 1870, nearly five million Americans, as well as many Europeans, crossed the Mississippi River and headed west. In their search for the mother lode, these white settlers trespassed on Native Americans’ Mother Earth, creating a crisis of sovereignty for Native Americans, who had been promised protection from white settlers’ depredations. Although Hollywood and accounts common to the time depicted the Indians as perpetrators of “massacres” against innocent women and children, the historical record shows that settlers traveling the Bozeman Trail and the Oregon Trail (the two main trails across the northern plains) trespassed on Native lands without consulting Native leaders, slaughtered buffalo on those lands, and left smallpox, cholera, measles, and scarlet fever in their wake. Between 1840 and 1860, only 362 emigrants crossing the plains died as a result of Native American attacks (Calloway 2004, 267). The cost to Native Americans was much higher. As a result of this increased emigration and federal officials’ need to protect American citizens, the U.S. government initiated another round of treaty making to try to keep the peace. For three weeks in September 1851, federal negotiators, led by the superintendent of Indian affairs (at St. Louis), David D. Mitchell, a former fur trader in the region, and the Indian agent Thomas Fitzpatrick, met with representatives of the Crow and ten bands of the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Assiniboine, Hidatsa, Mandan, and Arikara at Fort Laramie in present-day Wyoming. All told, nearly ten thousand Native Americans assembled for the treaty council, the largest such gathering in the history of Indian-white relations. Federal treaty commissioners spent a total of eight days meeting with these tribal representatives, who spent an additional eight days discussing the various treaty provisions among themselves. Ethnohistorian Raymond DeMallie, who has studied extensively the plains treaty councils, identified three main stages in the negotiations: ritual,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northern Plains

delineation of demands, and gift giving. The intercultural relations that led to the signing of the Fort Laramie treaty on September 17 first featured the employment of specific rituals by each side to set the stage for the detailed negotiations. To begin and end the daily discussions, treaty commissioners and Indian leaders performed the ceremony of the smoking of the pipe; to call the meeting to order, U.S. representatives fired one of their cannons and raised the American flag, symbolically asserting their power. The second stage involved presenting the specific provisions of the treaty, most of which had been written before the commissioners arrived in Wyoming. In the third stage, the negotiations were sealed with presents brought by the American commissioners, which were distributed by tribal leaders as a means of solidifying their political authority and their social standing as providers to the community. In return for smoking the pipe, American commissioners required Native American leaders to “touch the pen,” or sign the treaty document, despite the fact that Native negotiators found that step unnecessary, given the trust established by the ritual of smoking the pipe. The three stages of ritual, negotiation, and gift giving represented continuity with previous councils stretching back to the Lewis and Clark expedition and would remain the pattern for negotiations beyond 1851. As was the case during the Lewis and Clark negotiations, U.S. commissioners forced Native Americans to nominate one leader to represent all the constituencies of a tribe, and in the case of the Sioux, to unite all the bands into one nation and have just one Sioux chief, the “head chief,” to represent all the diverse bands. For Native Americans used to consensus building, this was a traumatic restructuring of political culture that reflected their declining sovereignty. The treaty, signed for the purpose of “establishing and confirming peaceful relations” among the assembled Indian nations to protect white settlers, outlined new rules of engagement on the northern plains. Native Americans would permit the construction of forts and roads in their territory; in return, the United States would “bind themselves to protect the aforesaid Indian nations against the commission of all depredations by the people of the said United States.” Additionally, the United States promised to provide annual payments worth $50,000 for ten years, in the form of “provisions, merchandize, domestic animals, and agricultural implements.” Thus, the United States intended to sustain

www.abc-clio.com

255

the civilization program whether Native Americans wanted it or not. The treaty also stipulated that each Indian nation would subscribe to specific new boundaries determined by the United States; this was the most contentious and controversial part of the treaty. The Sioux, in particular, had no interest in being told where they could live and hunt. Rejecting the notion of a restricted territory, Black Hawk of the Oglala band of Sioux told U.S. commissioners, “These lands once belonged to the Kiowa and the Crow, but we whipped those nations out of them, and in this we did what the white men do when they want the lands of the Indians” (White 1978, 342). As historian Richard White contends, the Sioux had the upper hand in 1851 and had no intention of accepting U.S. domination on the northern plains. The same year as the Fort Laramie treaty of 1851, U.S. officials negotiated with the Dakota (Santee) Sioux of present-day Minnesota, producing the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux (Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands–July 23, 1851), in which the Dakota Sioux gave up their claim to much of their territory and accepted a reservation as their new homeland. A second treaty, signed in 1858, shrank that homeland even further. For this land, the U.S. government agreed to provide blacksmith, farming, and education assistance, as well as annual payments. The sale of Sioux land to white settlers, many of whom treated the Sioux poorly and thus upset a delicate system of interethnic relations formed during the colonial era fur trade, helped fuel resentment among Sioux. This resentment became explosive in 1862, when the federal government failed to produce annuities on time, which led to widespread starvation. The result was the Sioux Uprising, which involved brutal violence on both sides and the hanging of thirty-eight Sioux, the largest mass execution in U.S. history. It is critical to understand this violence as a product of the Dakota Sioux’s belief that the spirit of the treaties had been violated, which meant that they now viewed the Americans’ entire value system as corrupt, as the treaty itself embodied cultural values such as trust and reciprocity. This dynamic of resentment and violence would be repeated after the Lakota Sioux and other Northern Plains tribes signed the second Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868. Between 1851 and 1868, the U.S. government negotiated a series of treaties with Native groups of the northern plains and other regions of the American West, including treaties with the Blackfeet and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

256

Regional Essays

the Flathead, signed in 1855, that circumscribed their territory. After the Civil War ended, the U.S. government concentrated on ending Indian-white violence in the southern and the northern plains regions. The United States Indian Peace Commission, comprising military officers, ministers, and civilian reformers, formed in 1867 to end hostilities and accelerate the “concentration” and “domestication” of Native Americans on reservations through a reborn civilization program. The Peace Commission first negotiated treaties with Native American nations of the southern plains before turning its attention to those of the northern plains, in particular the Sioux, who remained intent on defending their territory against settlers on the Bozeman Trail and against hordes of white hunters who slaughtered buffalo herds from railroad cars. In late April 1868, after agreeing to the demands of the great Sioux leader Red Cloud that the U.S. abandon its forts on the Bozeman Trail, the Peace Commission gathered with Red Cloud and other Sioux chiefs to negotiate a major treaty at Fort Laramie, Wyoming, in an effort to end the so-called Red Cloud War. Similar negotiations with the Crow Nation and the Cheyenne and Arapaho followed in May 1868, which produced treaties similar to the Sioux treaty signed on April 29. In contrast to the negotiations at Fort Laramie in 1851, the United States held the upper hand at Fort Laramie in 1868. At the council with the Brule Sioux on April 28, General John B. Sanborn told the Sioux chiefs, “If you continue to fight the whites you can not expect the President nor your friends among them to protect you in your country from those who are waiting to go there in large numbers. If you continue at war your country will soon be all overrun by white people . . .Your game and yourselves will be destroyed.” General William S. Harney added, “We do not want to go to war with you because you are a small nation, a handful compared with us, and we want you to live.” Harney and Sanborn tried to persuade the Sioux that one large army after another would engage the Sioux until hostilities ended. This treaty council was, as Sanborn put it, “the last effort of the President to make peace with you and save for you a country and a home” (Calloway 2004, 301–302). The treaty signed on April 29 had numerous provisions, the most important of which confirmed that the United States would abandon its forts in Sioux territory, granted to the Sioux the “Great Sioux Reservation” in present-day South Dakota, and guaranteed access to and hunting rights in “unceded Indian territory” adjacent to the reservation, which

www.abc-clio.com

included the Black Hills. In addition, the treaty provided annuities to the Sioux for the purpose of expanding the civilization program and remaking the Sioux in the image of the Christian yeoman farmer. For example, Article 7 read as follows: “In order to insure the civilization of the Indians . . . , the necessity of education is admitted . . . , and [the Sioux] therefore pledge themselves to compel their children, male and female . . . to attend school.” Thus, the treaty laid the foundation of a program of coercive assimilation that would cause great social and cultural trauma for the Sioux, even as it sowed the seeds of future military conflict over the status of the Black Hills, considered sacred ground to the Sioux. The treaty, in short, failed to produce peace. And the United States failed to uphold its honor to maintain it. In 1871, Congress resolved that “hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty” (Prucha 2000, 135). Believing that all barriers to expansion had been removed, American politicians no longer felt an obligation to conduct diplomacy with Native groups as sovereign nations. The spirit of equality was shattered. However, as during the early national period, Congress expressed the intent to expand with honor, noting that, although it would stop making new treaties, it would also continue to honor those treaties already ratified. Such noble sentiments melted away during the spring thaw in South Dakota, as white gold miners by the hundreds descended on Sioux lands near the Black Hills, engendering resistance on the part of Sioux who believed they had the right by treaty to defend themselves. Not only did the federal government fail to honor the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868, it sent federal troops led by General George Custer to protect the gold miners. This clear violation of the spirit and the letter of the law led to the militarization of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho forces, which destroyed Custer’s troops in July 1876 at the Battle of Greasy Grass, as the Sioux called the Battle of Little Bighorn. But it was a short-lived victory for the Sioux. In 1877, they were forced by federal officials’ threats of starvation to give up the Black Hills. This immoral action on the part of federal officials was simply one of a series of occasions on which the U.S. government invalidated existing treaties when it became economically useful to do so. But the larger problem, as military historian John Gray has pointed out,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Northern Plains

stemmed from the duplicitous ways in which federal treaty commissioners negotiated the treaty documents in the first place, embedding a set of contradictions in the language that Native American negotiators could not foresee would produce future conflict. As Gray writes of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, Here is a solemn treaty that cedes territory admittedly unceded; that confines the Indian to a reservation while allowing him to roam elsewhere, and that guarantees against trespass, unless a trespasser appears! . . . It was the Commission that wrote in the contradictions. There can be only one explanation—they designed one set of provisions to beguile and another to enforce. The treaty itself, Gray concluded, was “so exclusively a white man’s device . . . that it served primarily as an instrument of chicanery and a weapon of aggression” (Calloway, 2004, 296–297). In short, the U.S. government engineered a dishonorable expansion in the northern plains and across the continent. Ever since 1877, the Sioux have fought to reclaim the Black Hills. In 1950, the Sioux filed a claim with the Indian Claims Commission, established in 1946 to facilitate the adjudication of treaty violations, which awarded the Sioux $17.5 million after determining that the taking of the Black Hills in 1877 was unconstitutional. In the 1980 case United States v. Sioux Nation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the award while granting the Sioux interest on the original judgment of $17.5 million, which raised the total to more than $100 million. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted, “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history. . . .” However, the Sioux wanted land, not money, and have yet to claim the Court’s monetary compensation. The Sioux continue to fight for the return of the Black Hills. Treaties signed well over one hundred years ago continue to animate, define, and shape Indian-white relations for the Sioux and for many other Native American groups. Paul C. Rosier

www.abc-clio.com

257

References and Further Reading Calloway, Colin G. 2004. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1985. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. Austin: University of Texas Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond DeMallie, eds. 1975. Proceedings of the Great Peace Commission of 1867–1868. Washington, DC: Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 2000. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen: Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In Ethnicity on the Great Plains, ed. Fredrick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoxie, Frederick E. 1995. Parading through History: The Making of the Crow Nation in America, 1805–1935. New York: Cambridge University Press. Konkle, Maureen. 2004. Writing Indian Nations: Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 1827–1863. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Lazarus, Edward. 1991. Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 to the Present. New York: HarperCollins. Perdue, Theda, and Michael Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1986. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1997. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. White, Richard. 1978. “The Winning of the West: The Expansion of the Western Sioux in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” Journal of American History 65 (September): 319–343. Wilkinson, Charles. 1987. American Indians, Time, and the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southeast and Florida Diplomacy in the Native Southeast

T T

he Native American peoples in the southeastern quadrant of North America and Florida participated in diplomatic relations long before the arrival of Europeans. Indian communities held diplomatic councils to create and maintain trade relations, negotiated agreements to acquire materials and products not indigenous to their territory, and made arrangements to ensure safe passage for their trade representatives through the territories of other tribes. Indian peoples also used diplomatic arrangements to construct intertribal confederacies, to set up military alliances, and to establish peace with enemies after periods of war. Southeastern Indians followed diplomatic protocols familiar to most Eastern Woodlands peoples. From the beginning of an intertribal council, which for some peoples began with an elaborate procession to the council grounds, the host people established a hospitable atmosphere by warmly greeting the visiting representatives, offering them food and drink, and ensuring that they were comfortable. The parties smoked a peace pipe, or calumet, to symbolically open a clear line of communication between the two peoples and exchanged gifts such as furs, feathers, and pipes to prove their sincerity. The negotiations began with orations from each side. In a peace negotiation, for example, the representatives might express their sadness that relations had been broken by war, announce their desire to restore peace, and describe the vision of the future that would be created if the parties came to agreement. The parties spoke in a common diplomatic language that enabled peoples who spoke distinct languages and dialects to communicate; they couched their discussions in metaphors, stories, and symbols designed to signify their expectations in a clear but polite fashion. Early European records indicate that Indians participating in diplomatic negotiations used language that encouraged their counterparts to “think good thoughts of peace,” “bury the hatchet,” “link arms together,” and “eat out of the same bowl.” When Indian communities established diplomatic arrangements, they often created fictive kinship relations with their negotiating partners and described their counterparts in familiar kinship terms. A small, less powerful group, for instance,

might refer to a militarily stronger people as their “older brother.” This signified that they expected to be protected, just as a young boy is defended by his elder sibling.

Treaties in the Colonial Era The European imperial and colonial governments established the practice of dealing with the Native American nations by means of the diplomatic treaty. Over time, European negotiators in America adopted many of the same diplomatic procedures and formalities that Indian peoples had used in the past, including the exchanging of gifts, the passing of the peace pipe, and the use of Indian metaphors and allusions. The British and colonial governments used treaties to make peace with, acquire territory from, and establish trade relations with the Southeastern Indian nations. For example, in 1715 the Yamasee, Catawba, and other Indian tribes in the region attacked the town of Charleston after becoming frustrated by unscrupulous traders who captured indebted tribal members and sold them into slavery. After bitter fighting, in 1717 the Yamasee and Catawba made peace with the English; the parties used a diplomatic treaty to bring hostilities to an end. The British also used treaties to acquire land from the tribes and impose their vision of territorial order. For example, in 1765 the British and the Choctaw signed a treaty at Mobile establishing the Choctaw border at the Alabama and Cahaba rivers. The British also promised to keep English settlers from crossing into Choctaw territory. The European nations also used treaty negotiations to attack the interests of their colonial rivals. In the Treaty of Grandpré (1750), French agents persuaded the Choctaw to wage war against the Chickasaw, who were aligned with Great Britain. In that agreement, the French threatened to execute any Choctaw who killed a French subject or invited an English subject into their village.

Treaty Relations during the American Revolution During the Revolutionary War, the American colonies unsuccessfully competed with Great Britain

259 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

260

Regional Essays

to conclude treaties that secured the military assistance or neutrality of the Indian nations in the Southeast. The major tribal nations in the Southeast—the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Muscogee Creek—feared that an American victory would only encourage the intrusion of settlers into their lands and remained hostile to the colonies. American military efforts were more successful in bringing about Indian neutrality. In 1776, militia forces from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia invaded the Cherokee Nation, destroyed Cherokee crops and villages, and cowed the Cherokee and the rest of the southeastern tribes into neutrality for the remainder of the war. After the conclusion of the Cherokee War of 1776, the states involved in the war opened separate negotiations with the Cherokee within their borders. On May 20, 1777, the Lower Cherokee signed a treaty with South Carolina and Georgia at DeWitt’s Corner, South Carolina. The Cherokee agreed to return their American prisoners and ceded their territory east of the Unicoi Mountains; Georgia and South Carolina promised to keep their citizens from crossing into Cherokee territory and agreed to provide the Cherokee people with trade goods. In the Treaty of Long Island of Holston, concluded on June 20, 1777, the Overhill Cherokee concluded peace negotiations with similar provisions with North Carolina and Virginia. In August 1783, a dissident faction of the Creek Nation, rejecting the British alliance arranged by Alexander McGillivray, ceded a portion of their territory to Georgia in the Treaty of Augusta. In that same year, the Chickasaw signed a treaty with Virginia that established peace and borders between the two peoples. The fact that these treaties were concluded with the states rather than the Continental Congress demonstrates the confusion that existed over which government held jurisdiction over Indian relations. The southern states argued that the Articles of Confederation gave the states complete jurisdiction over Indian affairs, and they continued to conclude separate treaties with the Indians within their borders. Those who favored a stronger central government argued that Indian relations were a concern of all of the states and therefore a matter to be handled by the Continental Congress. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 clarified the wording of the national government’s authority somewhat by endowing Congress with the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” although many south-

www.abc-clio.com

erners continued to claim the power to treat with Indian nations.

The Hopewell Treaties In 1783, soon after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress directed treaty commissioners to make peace with the Indian nations and inform them that the United States had acquired sovereignty over them with its victory over Great Britain. The Indian nations in the Southeast refused to accept this argument. The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Muscogee Creek continued to possess formidable military forces, and the latter three nations preferred to continue playing off the United States against Spain for their own benefit. In 1784 the Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Nations signed treaties with the Spanish government. These treaties raised serious concerns among American policymakers that the southeastern nations might ally with Spain and attack the southern and western flank of the United States. In 1785, the United States accelerated its efforts to establish peaceful relations with the southeastern tribes. In November of that year, treaty commissioners sent by the Congress met with Cherokee leaders at Hopewell, a plantation on the Keowee River in northwestern South Carolina. After lengthy negotiations, the United States and the Cherokee Nation concluded a treaty that established peace and agreed upon formal boundaries. Some provisions of the agreement suggested that the Cherokee had surrendered aspects of national sovereignty to the United States. The Cherokee, for instance, acknowledged that they would thereafter live “under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign, whosoever.” Another article stated that “the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they think proper.” The Hopewell agreement also prohibited the Cherokee from engaging in diplomatic or trade relations with other nations. (Despite this provision, the Cherokee signed a treaty with Spain in 1792. The Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Muscogee Creek also signed treaties with Spain that year; these agreements seemed to violate the United States’ efforts at Hopewell and, later, in the treaty with the Creek in New York, to prohibit the tribes

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southeast and Florida

from conducting trade or diplomacy with European nations). Other provisions of the treaty implied that the United States recognized the Cherokee people as an independent, sovereign nation. Along with establishing borders for the Cherokee, the treaty required American settlers to leave Cherokee territory. Those who did not leave, the treaty stated, would fall subject to Cherokee law. The treaty also provided the Cherokee with the right to send a “deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.” Some scholars have argued that this provision was an admission on the part of the United States that the Cherokee constituted an independent sovereign nation; others have argued that the American treaty commissioners intended the Cherokee eventually to assimilate into the United States. As the U.S. commissioners were preparing to depart, they received word that treaty delegations from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations were on their way to Hopewell. On January 3, 1786, the United States and the Choctaw reached treaty terms. The Chickasaw concluded their agreement with the United States on January 10. The Choctaw and Chickasaw treaties were almost identical to the U.S.Cherokee accord, except that the Choctaw and Chickasaw did not receive permission to send a deputy to the U.S. Congress.

Treaties and the Civilization Program In 1789, President George Washington appointed Henry Knox, his artillery commander during the Revolutionary War, as his secretary of war. In letters to Washington, Knox argued that the United States should recognize that the Indian tribes were sovereign peoples possessing a legitimate claim to their land. By recognizing the rights of the Indian nations, Knox continued, the United States could establish peace along its western frontier, institute an orderly process for territorial expansion, and demonstrate that it was a just nation that dealt honorably with its indigenous population. Knox persuaded Washington to his view, and together, through executive orders, treaties, and legislation, they implemented the secretary’s suggestions. In 1790, Congress enacted the first in a series of statutes called the Trade and Intercourse Acts, which provided, among other things, that land purchases from Indians be acquired in treaties negoti-

www.abc-clio.com

261

ated by tribal leaders and federal commissioners appointed by the president. Knox did not believe that the tribes would remain forever sovereign, and he argued that the United States had a duty to prepare Native Americans for their eventual assimilation. He proposed a civilization program in which the government would teach Indians to read, write, and till the soil like American yeomen farmers. Knox believed that, once Native Americans abandoned hunting for European American-styled farming, their “hunting grounds,” or national territory, could be purchased by the United States and sold to and developed by Americans. Over time, Knox predicted, acculturated Indians would assimilate into the American society that slowly engulfed them. Congress appropriated money to supply Indians with plows, spinning wheels, and other tools and implements, and began posting agents among the tribes to instruct individual Indians in their use. The Muscogee Creek Nation became the first southeastern tribe to conclude a treaty that included civilization provisions. On August 7, 1790, the Muscogee Creek and the United States signed the Treaty of New York, which contained provisions similar to those set forth in the Hopewell treaties and reaffirmed, to a considerable extent, the Creek borders established in treaties made with Georgia at Augusta (1783), Galphinton (1785), and Shoulderbone (1786). The civilization article of the treaty declared that the United States would assist the Creek on the path toward “a greater degree of civilization,” teach them to become “herdsmen and cultivators,” and provide them “useful domestic animals and implements of husbandry.” The United States also promised to respect the borders of the remaining Creek territory and to provide the Creek with trade goods and an annuity of $1,500. Annuities, an annual cash payment to the tribe, became common in U.S.-Indian treaties. In a set of secret provisions, which also became commonplace in federalIndian treaties, the United States agreed to pay the Creek Chief Alexander McGillivray $1,200 a year, made him the federal agent for the Creek Nation, and appointed him a brigadier general in the U.S. Army. With this treaty, and with the treaties at Fort Harmar with several tribes from north of the Ohio, George Washington’s administration established the precedent of sending concluded treaties to the Senate for ratification. Proponents of the idea that the tribes were sovereign nations subsequently used this

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

262

Regional Essays

development to bolster their argument, for the Constitution required the Senate to consent to treaties the president negotiated with foreign states. The United States also persuaded the other major southeastern tribes to sign treaties implementing the civilization program. On July 2, 1791, at the Holston River near what is now Knoxville, the Cherokee reaffirmed the peace and protection clauses of the Hopewell agreement and ceded a tract of territory settled by Americans. This pattern, in which settlers encroached on Indian land, which was then acquired by the United States by treaty, was forced on the Cherokee and the other southeastern tribes over and over again. In return, the United States agreed to provide funds and instruction to lead the Cherokee toward acculturation.

Jefferson and the Southeast Nations When Thomas Jefferson was elected president of the United States, he quickly set out to acquire Indian land in the Southeast. Although the Cherokee at first tried to resist U.S. demands, they eventually surrendered cessions in treaties at Wafford’s Settlement (1804), Tellico (1804–1805), and Washington (1806). The Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations also ceded territory to the United States during this era. These nations had incurred enormous debts to the British trading firm of Panton, Leslie, and Company. The three nations offered up land and rights-of-way through their territory to the United States; in exchange, the federal government paid the Indians’ debts. Between 1801 and 1805, in three treaties at Fort Adams, Fort Confederation, and Hoe Buckintoopa, the Choctaw ceded to the United States approximately seven million acres and the right to build a federal road through their territory. In 1805, the Chickasaw ceded all their lands north of the Tennessee River to the United States; most of the annuities the Indians received were paid directly to their creditors at Chickasaw Bluffs. That same year, the Creek surrendered territory east of the Ocmulgee River and authorized the United States to build a road through their nation to Mobile. In 1803, Jefferson’s administration completed the Louisiana Purchase. The acquisition of this vast territory gave Jefferson the opportunity to implement an idea he had contemplated for many years: the relocation of the Indian nations in the East beyond the Mississippi River. There, Jefferson suggested, Native Americans could acculturate at their

www.abc-clio.com

own pace, retain their autonomy, and live free from the trespasses of American settlers. Jefferson attempted to persuade Indian leaders to take their people to the West. Although the southeastern tribes generally rejected the president’s overtures, in 1808 the federal government did conclude a removal and exchange treaty with a group of disaffected Cherokee. By 1810, about one thousand members of that dissident group had migrated to the Arkansas River valley.

Treaties after the War of 1812 During the War of 1812, American militia forces under Andrew Jackson destroyed the Nativist Redstick Creek revolt at Horseshoe Bend (1814). In the Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), Jackson forced the Muscogee Creek Nation to surrender more than twenty million acres, even though many of the Creek had fought with Jackson against the Redsticks. The treaty also required the Muscogee Creek Nation to end its relations with Spain and Great Britain and authorized the United States to build roads, forts, and trading posts in Creek territory. After the war, Jackson and John C. Calhoun, the secretary of war under President James Monroe, called for the United States to end the use of treaties and what Jackson called the “absurdity” of dealing with the Indian tribes as sovereign nations. In 1817, a congressional committee advised Monroe to embrace Jefferson’s removal idea and relocate the southeastern tribes to the West. During Monroe’s administration, the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw all ceded land to the United States; treaties with the Cherokee in 1817 and 1819, the Choctaw in 1820, the Chickasaw in 1816 and 1818, and the Creek in 1825 all included articles providing inducements for tribe members to emigrate west of the Mississippi. In the Treaty of Doak’s Stand (1820), the Choctaw traded more than five million acres in Alabama and Mississippi for thirteen million acres in what is now western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. When surveyors arrived to mark out the new western territory, however, the Choctaw learned that white settlers had already moved into the area. When the Choctaw leadership protested, the United States asked them to send a delegation to Washington to renegotiate the boundaries of their cession. There, the Choctaw chief Moshulatubbee agreed to the Treaty of Washington City, which required the Choctaw to surrender approximately two million acres of the land they

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southeast and Florida

had acquired at Doak’s Stand. Although Calhoun and federal officials urged the Choctaw to move en masse to the West, only a few small groups chose to remove. The Chickasaw also surrendered cessions in 1816 and 1818, although they did not agree to provisions for removal at this time. In the treaties of 1805, 1816, and 1818, the Chickasaw gave up almost twenty million acres of their national territory. The Seminole, a nation comprising remnant indigenous groups and Creek Redsticks who had fled into the region after the Creek Civil War, also ceded territory to the United States. In 1823, at Moultrie Creek, Florida, the Seminole ceded their lands in northern Florida and along the coasts and agreed to remain in the interior of the state. After surrendering thirty million acres, the Seminole retained only five million acres in the central part of the peninsula. In 1825, federal commissioners and Georgia officials persuaded a small group of Muscogee Creek, led by a chief named William McIntosh, to sign the Treaty of Indian Springs (1825), which required the Creek to abandon their territory in Georgia and a large tract in Alabama. The Creek council had earlier passed a law imposing the death penalty for anyone who sold national lands without the consent of the government; and on April 30, 1825, a number of Creek warriors representing their government killed McIntosh. The Creek government also sent representatives to the United States capital to protest the treaty. In 1827, the Creek Nation and the United States signed the Treaty of Washington, which voided the Treaty of Indian Springs. The new treaty and a subsequently signed revision, however, still resulted in the surrender of all Creek territory in Georgia.

The Removal Treaties These agreements did not satisfy the southern state governments. In the 1820s, politicians in Georgia called for the expulsion of all Indians from the state. The demands for removal were a product of the profitability of cotton agriculture in the Southeast, the concomitant demand for arable land, and the emerging racial prejudice on the part of many white southerners. Beginning in 1827, Georgia passed a series of laws designed to coerce the Cherokee to leave the state. The Georgia legislature extended the state’s jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation, passed laws purporting to abolish the Cherokee laws and government, and set in motion a process to seize the

www.abc-clio.com

263

Cherokee national territory, divide it up into parcels, and offer it in a lottery to white Georgians. Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee followed Georgia’s lead and passed laws extending state jurisdiction over the Indians in their borders. In 1828, Andrew Jackson was elected president of the United States, and he set out to achieve a general removal of the eastern tribes. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the president to negotiate removal and cession treaties with the Indian tribes in the East. The Cherokee, however, refused to remove. John Ross, the principal chief of the Cherokee, argued to the American public that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation, that Georgia’s efforts to exert its jurisdiction over the Cherokee violated both the U.S. Constitution and international law, and that the federal government had a duty under the Treaty of Hopewell and subsequent U.S.-Cherokee treaties to protect his nation from Georgia’s attacks. Ross understood that the Cherokees’ only hope for survival in the East was to force the United States to abide by its treaty commitments, and he consistently reminded federal leaders of their nation’s longstanding recognition of the Cherokees’ national sovereignty in those agreements. With Congress and the president now promoting a removal policy, the Cherokee asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in their behalf and recognize the Cherokee Nation as a separate, sovereign nation. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokee constituted a distinct state and that the United States had historically recognized the sovereignty of their nation in numerous treaties. However, Marshall said, the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state; it was a “domestic dependent nation” under the protection of the United States. A year later, in Worcester v. Georgia, Marshall offered a stronger pronouncement in favor of the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. Though the Cherokee Nation had placed itself under the protection of the United States at Hopewell, Marshall held, it remained a distinct and separate nation. The efforts by Georgia to extend its laws over the Cherokee, Marshall concluded, violated the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation and unconstitutionally intruded into the special treaty relationship between the Cherokee and the United States. Andrew Jackson was determined not to enforce the decision in Worcester, however, and allowed Georgia to continue its efforts to force the Cherokee out of the state. At the same time, Jackson, now empowered by

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

264

Regional Essays

the Indian Removal Act, moved to relocate all of the Indian nations from the East. The removal of the southeastern Indian nations was accomplished through the use of the treaty. Ironically, even as the U.S. government worked to coerce the Indian nations to surrender their land in the East, it continued to use the mechanism that suggested that the tribes were sovereign. The removal treaties typically provided for an exchange of remaining national territory in the East for new lands west of the Mississippi, reimbursements for the loss of buildings and fixtures, the costs of emigration, funds to help the removed Indians acclimate to their new environment, and cash or annuities. The United States also promised to honor the title of the Indian nation’s new land in the West, to respect its political autonomy once there, and to protect the tribe from future trespasses. On September 18, 1830, about six thousand Choctaw met with federal treaty officials at Dancing Rabbit Creek in eastern Mississippi and signed a removal treaty with the United States. In an effort to coerce the Choctaw into removing, federal agents plied the Indians with alcohol and warned them they would forfeit their existence as a tribe and fall under the authority of Mississippi if they refused to sign. Many Choctaw refused to be bullied and left the council. On September 27, however, Greenwood LeFlore, Mushulatubbee, and 170 other Choctaw leaders signed a treaty that called for the wholesale removal of the Choctaw Nation. The treaty also provided that LeFlore and other Choctaw families could remain in the East if they accepted individual allotments of land. The treaty effectively divided the Choctaw Nation in two. In 1831, the first group of Choctaw emigrated to their new homes in the West. The majority of Choctaw moved on to the Indian Territory, yet perhaps as many as six thousand remained in Mississippi. Only sixty-nine of those who remained took allotments; most of the Mississippi Choctaw were left landless and destitute. In 1832, the Creek government agreed to surrender its territory east of the Mississippi. In return, the United States provided the Creek Nation with territory in what is now east central Oklahoma. In addition, Creek individuals received allotments of land; they could either retain the tract and remain where they were or sell their land and emigrate to the West. Most of the individuals who received an allotment lost them through fraudulent schemes to white Americans. The Creek, now overrun by American settlers and speculators, removed to the West.

www.abc-clio.com

In 1830, the Chickasaw agreed to a cession and removal treaty at Franklin, Tennessee. When the Chickasaw visited their new territory, they were dissatisfied with the land and nullified the Treaty of Franklin. White settlers, however, continued to flood into the Chickasaw Nation; and local and state authorities began to arrest and imprison individual Chickasaw on false or minor charges. In addition, federal negotiators threatened to withhold annuities from the Chickasaw if they did not agree to remove. In October 1832, the Chickasaw signed another removal treaty at their council house at Pontotoc Creek. The Treaty of Pontotoc provided that the Chickasaw Nation’s land would be surveyed, divided up into tracts, and allotted to individual Chickasaw adults. The Chickasaw would remove to their new lands in the West, and the remaining Chickasaw land would be sold by the federal government and placed in a tribal fund. After the signing of the treaty, the Chickasaw immediately began to protest the manner in which it had been pressed upon them, and they began sending delegations to Washington to demand its nullification. In 1834, the federal government agreed to amend the treaty and allow the individual owners of each allotment to receive the proceeds from the sale of their land. In the Treaty of Doaksville (1837), the Chickasaw accepted an invitation from the Choctaw to move onto an area between the Canadian and Red rivers that the latter nation had acquired in their removal treaty. The treaty also provided that Chickasaws could accept citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. In May 1832, the Seminole agreed to emigrate to the West in the Treaty of Payne’s Landing if they had an opportunity to visit and approve of the land the federal government was offering in exchange. In November, seven Seminole leaders visited the proposed territory, where they signed the removal Treaty of Fort Gibson without receiving the authority of the Seminole council. The seven who signed later claimed that they had been tricked and intimidated into agreeing to the treaty. Almost all the Seminole refused to recognize the treaty and resolved to oppose removal by force. When the time set for their removal passed, on January 1, 1836, the U.S. Army moved into Seminole territory. When the Second Seminole War ended in 1842, all but a very small population of the Seminole had been either killed or forcibly removed. The remnant that remained became the core of the vibrant Seminole nations that reemerged in the twentieth century.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southeast and Florida

The Cherokee were the last nation to remove to the West. After Jackson allowed the Worcester decision to go unenforced, the Cherokee Nation became divided between those who refused to remove and those who wanted the Cherokee to get the best deal they could and remove to the West. In 1835, a dissident group of Cherokee led by Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot signed the removal Treaty of New Echota. The treaty required the Cherokee Nation to surrender its remaining territory in the East for a parcel in the recently established Indian Territory and to remove within two years from the signing of the agreement. Even though it was completed without the sanction of the Cherokee national government, the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty. In 1838, the U.S. Army rounded up as many Cherokee as they could into temporary stockades; and during the winter of 1838–1839, the Cherokee traveled the Trail of Tears to the Indian Territory. Scholars estimate that one-quarter of the Cherokee Nation died on the forced emigration to the West. Once in the Indian Territory, a group of men who had opposed removal attacked and killed the two Ridges and Boudinot for violating a law that prohibited the sale of Cherokee land without their government’s consent. With the departure of most of the remaining Seminole in 1842, the United States had, by treaty, forced all of the major southeastern Indian tribes out of the region. In the West, the Indian nations continued to receive federal funds and instruction toward civilization; and there, for many years, they continued to exist as separate, sovereign nations. Tim Alan Garrison References and Further Reading Carson, James T. 1999. Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Champagne, Duane. 1992. Social Order and Political Change: Constitutional Governments among the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

www.abc-clio.com

265

Garrison, Tim Alan. 2002. The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Gibson, Arrell M. 1981. The Chickasaws. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hudson, Charles. 1976. The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. McLouglin, William G. 1992. Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. O’Brien, Greg. 2002. Choctaws in a Revolutionary Age, 1750–1830. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Perdue, Theda. 1979. Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540–1866. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reid, John Phillip. 1976. A Better Kind of Hatchet: Law, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Cherokee Nation during the Early Years of European Contact. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press. Satz, Ronald N. 1975. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Swanton, John R. 1946. The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Wallace, Anthony F. C. 2001. Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1999. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. New York: Routledge. Wright, J. Leitch. 1990. Creeks and Seminoles: Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southern Plains and the Southwest

I

I

n the Southwest, Indians first dealt with the Spanish government in Mexico, then with the Republic of Mexico after 1821, and with the United States after 1846. The approaches of all three of these colonial powers were rather consistent, seeking to protect colonists from Indian attacks and to open new lands for trade and settlement, but only the United States was able to provide the consistent military presence that finally put an end to the resistance of the Comanche, Apache, Navajo, and other tribes to this encroachment. Frequent treaties with the nomadic Comanche, Apache, and Navajo were a sign of recurrent hostilities. Colonial governments usually could not or would not stop the continued encroachment on Indian lands that brought on new conflicts. The lack of treaties, as with the less nomadic groups, especially the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, indicated that there was less armed conflict with the colonial powers. A continued problem with treaty making was that the “tribes” with which the treaties were made tended to be loosely affiliated kinship groups speaking the same language or dialect and sharing similar customs. Making an agreement with one part of the “tribe” often did not bind other members, leading the colonial governments to accuse the “tribe” of bad faith. The first treaties in the Southwest were made with the Spanish government. Spanish treaties with the Navajo were made in 1786, 1805, and 1819. At the 1786 conference, two Comanche were used to exhort “the Navajo to be careful to be faithful in their promises,” and the Navajos were called on to help in the fight with the Gilas (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 133). The treaty of 1805 resulted in an exchange of captives and called for peace; the 1819 treaty again called for peace, including peace with the Hopi Pueblos, and for Navajo hostages to ensure that the treaty was honored. Mexican treaties with Navajo were made in 1822, 1823, 1839, 1841, and 1844. The large number of treaties indicates continued raids. The treaty of 1823 is typical in its call for peace and its provisions for the handing over of captives and stolen property. It also included a vain request that Navajos become Catholic and settle in pueblos.

The United States picked up where the Mexicans left off. An agreement in 1846 with Colonel Alexander W. Doniphan, which was never submitted to Congress and which called for peace, mutual trade, and mutual restoration of prisoners and stolen property, was agreed to by fourteen Navajo chiefs, including Sandoval, Narbona, and Manuelito. A second such agreement was made in 1848 with Colonel E. W. B. Newby, with similar provisions. Seven treaties were negotiated with the Navajo between 1846 and 1868. However, there was no central Navajo government to enforce treaties signed by particular headmen. Only three were ratified by the U.S. Senate, the first one in 1850, but a treaty with some Navajo leaders could not prevent the raiding of the Navajos and the counterraiding of New Mexicans. Renewed raiding between the New Mexico settlers and the Pueblos and Navajos erupted soon after each treaty was signed. When Kit Carson was assigned to round up the Navajos, he learned from past efforts; taking drastic measures, he used a winter scorched-earth campaign that included burning cornfields and chopping down peach trees. The trauma of the five years of captivity away from their homeland that resulted from Carson’s campaign helped to unite the Navajo and led to the signing of a permanent peace treaty in 1868, negotiated by peace commissioners General William T. Sherman and Colonel Lewis Tappan, which allowed the Navajo to return home. That treaty included articles on mutual friendship, reservation boundaries, agency buildings, starting farming, education, construction of roads and railroads, and the purchase of sheep, goats, cattle, and corn. The U.S. government had wanted to move the Navajos to Indian Territory, but the Navajos’ continued objections led to their being allowed to return home. Historian Peter Iverson writes that “the signing of the Navajo treaty of June 1, 1868, defined the heart of a homeland rather than ripping the heart out of a people” (Iverson 2002, 37). Repeated executive orders between 1878 and 1934 greatly expanded the size of the Navajo Reservation, as the Navajo population soared after 1868. The Apache, whose language is closely related to the Navajo language, were arguably the most troublesome Indians for all three of the colonial

267 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

268

Regional Essays

powers in the Southwest; relations with the Apache led to treaty after treaty. The first treaty recorded by Spain with the Apache was concluded in 1790. The Gila Apache pledged not to attack El Paso and to take part in campaigns against other hostile Apaches. Mexico made treaties with various groups of Apaches in 1835, 1836, 1839, 1842, and 1843. In these treaties, the cessation of raiding and the return of captives and stolen property were major issues, as they also were in Comanche and Navajo treaties. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 between the United States and Mexico ceded to the United States much of the land in which Apaches lived. A treaty made in 1851 in Santa Fe with eastern Apache by Governor James S. Calhoun, which was not presented to Congress, called for unconditional submission to the United States and good behavior. A convention in 1873 with the Jicarilla Apache laid out for them the boundaries of a reservation, pledged them to “induce their children, male and female, between the ages of seven and eighteen, to attend school,” and provided 160-acre allotments to any heads of families who desired to commence farming. The U.S. Army was still fighting the Apache in the 1880s, and Geronimo did not surrender until 1886. An agreement with the Apache, Mohave, and Yuma of San Carlos Reservation in 1896 ceded land. Living east of the Navajo and the Apache on the southern Great Plains, the Comanche, too, fought with the Spanish throughout the eighteenth century and later with Mexico, Texas, and the United States. A treaty of 1785 between eastern (Texas) Comanche and Spaniards called for annual gifts to the Comanche, the cessation of hostilities, the return of captives, exclusive trading rights, and opposition to the common enemy, the Lipan Apache. The following year, a treaty was made that included the Comanche in New Mexico. The treaty of 1822, formalized in Mexico City with the newly independent Mexican government, called for trade, for putting past conflicts with the Spanish government behind, for the return of prisoners, and for controlled access to each other’s territory. It also provided for twelve Comanche youth to go to Mexico City every four years to be educated. Another treaty with the Comanche was signed in 1826. The United States signed a treaty in Indian Territory with the Comanche and Witchetaw Indians and their associated bands in 1835. It gave the tribes hunting rights throughout the western possessions of the United States and declared, “Every injury or act of hostility by one or either of the contracting

www.abc-clio.com

parties on the other, shall be mutually forgiven and forever forgot.” In 1837, the Kiowa Apache (under the name Kataka) made their first treaty with the U.S. government. Their subsequent history is that of the Kiowa. In 1853, they are mentioned as a warlike band ranging the waters of the Canadian River in the same area of the Great Plains occupied by the Comanche, whom they often joined in raiding expeditions. Twelve treaties between Indian nations and the Republic of Texas were made between 1836 and 1845. These included a treaty of peace and perpetual friendship made in 1838 between the republic and the Lipan Apache, in which the Apache surrendered their sovereignty, making them subject to the laws of the Republic of Texas. The same year, Texas made a “Treaty of Peace and Amity” with the Comanche, who let the Republic of Texas prosecute whites who infringed on Comanche rights. A second treaty with the Comanche in 1843 called for the exchange of prisoners and “temporary peace” until a council could be held. In 1844, the Treaty of Tehuacana Creek between Texas and the Comanche, Kitsai, Waco, Caddo, Anadarko, Hainai, Delaware, Shawnee, Cherokee, Lipan Apache, and Tawakoni called for peace, for the establishment of trading houses by Texas with exclusive rights, for a prohibition on the sale of alcohol, for the provision of blacksmiths and schoolmasters, and for the mutual surrendering of prisoners. In 1845, Texas and the Tawakoni, Waco, Wichita, and Kitsai agreed to a treaty of peace, friendship, and commerce. The previous year, the Comanche and other tribes had pledged peace and agreed to trade only with Texas. In addition, no alcohol was to be sold to Indians, and schoolmasters and farmers might be sent to teach them. After Texas became part of the United States, the Butler and Lewis treaty of 1846 put the Comanche under the protection of the United States. A treaty concluded in 1850 with the Comanche, Caddo, Lipan Apache, Quapaw, Tawakoni, and Waco was never presented to Congress. In that agreement, lawbreakers were to be given up to the officer commanding Fort Martin Scott, and captive whites and runaway Negro slaves were to be returned. Additionally, horse stealing was to end, liquor was outlawed, and blacksmiths were to be provided to repair guns and farm utensils. The possibility of sending schoolteachers was also broached. The treaty of 1853 with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache allowed U.S. citizens to travel through

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southern Plains and the Southwest

their lands and promised indemnification for damages caused by that transit. It also pledged an annuity of $18,000 per year in goods and supplies for at least ten years, and the tribes pledged not to raid Mexico or fight each other. The 1863 treaty of perpetual “peace, friendship, and unity” with the same tribes, signed in Washington, D.C., was rejected by Congress. It was designed to allow unrestricted passage on the Overland Mail Route from Kansas City, Missouri, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and in return promised $25,000 per year for five years to be given in goods, merchandise, provisions, agricultural implements, and so on, with a possible extension by the president for another five years. A treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, negotiated in 1865 by John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele, provided annuities and sought to build roads through the tribes’ territory that would be safe for passage. During the Civil War, nine treaties also were made between Indian nations and the Confederate States of America, including two with the Comanche. North of the Comanche, the Southern Cheyenne saw their lives change drastically starting in the 1840s, as pandemics sharply reduced their numbers at the same time that their major food supply, the buffalo, followed a similar path to near extinction. As the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851 described: The territory of the Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, commencing at the Red Bute, or the place where the road leaves the north fork of the Platte River; thence up the north fork of the Platte River to its source; thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains to the head-waters of the Arkansas River; thence down the Arkansas River to the crossing of the Santa Fé road; thence in a northwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River, and thence up the Platte River to the place of beginning. The U.S. government promised supplies and reserved the right to build roads and military posts. In the 1861 Treaty of Fort Wise with the Arapaho and the Cheyenne, the Indian signers were not told all the terms written into the treaty. They were no longer to hold land in common and were promised annuities, but spending would be controlled by Indian Office officials, who supplied inferior goods. They were assigned barren lands that the whites did not want at the time, and their hunting rights were

www.abc-clio.com

269

restricted to the plains of eastern Colorado. Unique to the 1965 treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho negotiated on the banks of the Little Arkansas River was an apology, in Article 6, for “the gross and wanton outrages perpetrated” by Chivington’s Colorado Volunteers in their massacre at Sand Creek in 1864. The tribes were again assigned marginal land taken from other tribes in the Oklahoma panhandle. The treaty included hunting rights, defined reservation boundaries, provided annuities of $20 per person before removal to a reservation and $40 thereafter for forty years, and contained no education provisions. The majority of both tribes rejected this treaty. In 1890, an agreement with the Cheyenne and Arapaho paid for ceded land and called for allotment. Similar agreements were made with the Wichita and Kickapoo in 1891 and the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache in 1892. Sharing the southern Great Plains with the Cheyenne, Comanche, and Arapaho were the Pawnee and the Kiowa. Treaties with the Pawnee in 1818, negotiated with William Clark and Auguste Choteau, acknowledged that the Pawnee were under the protection of the United States and called for perpetual peace. In 1833, at the Grand Pawnee village on the Platte River, the United States agreed “to allow one thousand dollars a year for ten years, for schools to be established for the benefit of said four bands at the discretion of the President” and agreed “to furnish two blacksmiths and two strikers, with shop, tools and iron, for ten years . . . at an expense not exceeding two thousand dollars in the whole annually.” In the treaty of 1857 with the Pawnee, negotiated at Table Creek in Nebraska Territory, a large amount of land was ceded to the United States in return for $40,000 per year for five years and then $30,000 per year “as a perpetual annuity, at least one-half of which annual payments shall be made in goods, and such articles as may be deemed necessary for them.” Two manual labor schools were also promised. An agreement with the Pawnee in 1892 also called for a perpetual annuity of $30,000 per year. An agreement was made in 1909 to replace that perpetual annuity with a $600,000 lump sum payment. Whereas southwestern Indians, especially those located in the present state of New Mexico, have a long history of colonial imposition dating back to the early seventeenth century, the Indians of the southern plains, in contrast, lived relatively unrestricted lives until repeated discoveries of gold in various parts of the West from 1848 on brought a steady flow

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

270

Regional Essays

of immigrants through Indian lands who demanded military protection. Then, in the 1860s, the rapid extension of railroads brought a massive influx of settlers. Treaties made before the Civil War tended to focus on provisions for trading and safe passage of immigrants; after the Civil War and the passage of the Homestead Act of 1862, they focused on either removing of Indians from arable lands or “civilizing” them and giving them small homesteads (allotments) of their own in order to open up the remaining land for speculators and settlers. Even before the Indian Civilization Act of 1819, the United States had sought to transform nomadic Indians into Christian, English-speaking farmers who would live in peace alongside colonists. Schooling was an integral part of this plan, first to be undertaken by missionaries but, starting in the late nineteenth century, implemented by teachers who were directly employed by the government. However, establishing schools among the various tribes was futile until the tribes gave up their nomadic existence. For the Plains Indians, this was largely accomplished by the destruction of the buffalo herds on which they relied for their survival. The movement of the U.S. Indian Office from the War Department to the Department of the Interior in 1849 is symbolic of the increased military strength of the United States after a shaky beginning in which it had lost some major Indian battles. However, during the Civil War, that military dominance on the Great Plains was threatened, as troops were pulled east. Drastic measures were taken to protect settlers and immigration routes, such as Christopher (Kit) Carson’s scorched-earth campaign against the Navajo and their imprisonment for five years on the New Mexico-Texas border. Prolonged military campaigns under harsh winter conditions helped break the back of Indian resistance, but the campaigns were costly. For the more warlike tribes, it was cheaper for the U.S. government to try to buy land cessions with annuities than to fight for them. Critics of the military approach to Indian pacification complained that it cost a million dollars to kill one hostile Indian. The increasing cost of annuities agreed to by the Senate in treaties, but which had to be paid for with appropriation bills initiated in the House of Representatives, led to the ending of treaty making in 1871. Annuities were doubly important to tribes displaced by treaties because the tribes were often assigned barren lands that were the least attractive to white

www.abc-clio.com

settlement. However, a reluctant Congress and corruption within the Indian Office meant that rations promised in treaties were not always delivered or were inferior to what was promised, which created a situation ripe for the renewal of hostilities. The goal of treaty after treaty for perpetual peace and friendship was also undermined by the continued encroachment of settlers on Indian lands, and the continued warfare did not end until the Indians were confined to relatively small reservations. The colonial powers were greatly aided in their work of dispossessing Indians of their lands by the catastrophic decreases in the Indian population caused by recurring pandemics of smallpox, measles, and other diseases to which they had little or no immunity. Some Indian tribes took advantage of the withdrawal of troops from the West to fight in the Civil War (1861–1865), to renew warfare. At the end of the Civil War, some of the eastern reformers who had worked to abolish slavery turned their attention to ending the mistreatment of Indians and stopping the Indian wars. In 1865, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a Joint Special Committee on the Conduct of the Indian Tribes, known as the Doolittle Committee after its chairman. The committee divided into three groups and toured the West. Their report of 1867 noted a precipitous decline in Indian population outside of the Indian territories and found “that in a large majority of cases Indian wars are to be traced to the aggressions of lawless white men” (Prucha 2000, 102). The committee recommended a “civilization policy” that included providing schools and persuading Indians to become farmers. In 1867, the Arapaho and Southern Cheyenne were living between the Platte and Arkansas Rivers, and the Comanche and Kiowa were living to the south of the Arkansas River. The Plains tribes were being starved into submission, as professional hunters helped wipe out the vast buffalo herds on which the Indians depended for food, and they were beaten into submission by protracted military campaigns that continued through the harsh plains winters. Railroads were rapidly being built through the southern buffalo hunting grounds and, in the north, had already reached Cheyenne, Wyoming. Using the new Homestead Act of 1862, settlers were coming in on the new railroads and increasingly were pushing into Indian hunting grounds, creating continued friction and warfare. Settlers called on the military to protect them.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southern Plains and the Southwest

The need for continued expensive military expeditions against the various Plains tribes, along with the same humanitarian impulses that had led to the freeing of slaves, impelled Congress on July 20, 1867, to authorize President Andrew Johnson to appoint a Peace Commission to treat with Indian tribes. Its congressional mandate was to develop “a system for civilizing the Indians,” and it had the power and authority to call together the chiefs and headmen of such bands or tribes of Indians as are now waging war against the United States or committing depredations upon the people thereof, to ascertain the alleged reasons for their acts of hostility, and in their discretion, under the direction of the President, to make and conclude with said bands or tribes such treaty stipulations, subject to the action of the Senate, as may remove all just cause of complaint on their part, and at the same time establish security for person and property along the lines of railroad now being construction to the Pacific and other thoroughfares of travel to the western Territories, and such as will most likely insure civilization for the Indians and peace and safety for the whites. (St. Germain 2001, 48) Major General Winfield Scott Hancock ordered a halt to offensive warfare in 1867 to give the Great Peace Commission a chance to deal with hostile tribes. The commission was made up of Nathaniel G. Taylor, Senator John B. Henderson, Samuel F. Tappan, John Sanborn, and Generals William T. Sherman, William Harney, and Alfred Terry. Appointed by President Johnson as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Taylor was a former Methodist minister and a military officer who was in favor of a peace policy. He had seen the devastation caused by the military during the Civil War in his home state of Tennessee and had some sympathy for the Indians. Sanborn and Harney had previously negotiated treaties while serving on the Peace Commission of 1865, and Sanborn had also co-chaired the commission that investigated the Fetterman Massacre. Tappan was an ardent abolitionist who had been actively involved in the Underground Railroad, helping escaped slaves before the Civil War. He saw U.S. Indian policy as a “national sin” and chaired a commission that investigated the Sand Creek Massacre. Three months after the commission’s authorization, the commissioners brought presents for an esti-

www.abc-clio.com

271

mated five thousand Indians and negotiated the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek. They were accompanied by nine newspaper reporters and guarded by two companies of the Seventh Cavalry, supported by a Gatling gun unit. The Seventh Cavalry was temporarily without its commander, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, who had been arrested for leaving his troops to visit his wife without authorization. The commission met first with the Comanche and the Kiowa, then with the Apache, and finally with the Arapaho and the Cheyenne. The tribes gave up claims to some 90 million acres in return for 2.9 million acres in Indian Territory that had been taken from the Five Civilized Tribes because some had sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. The treaty also contained provisions for hunting outside the new reservation, schooling of their children, and annuities. It could not be altered except by a vote of three-fourths of the adult male population of the tribes. This treaty was no more successful than the subsequent Treaty of Fort Laramie negotiated by the Peace Commission, and sporadic fighting continued till 1875. When the Jerome Commission sought to open a portion of the reservation of 1867 to whites, the tribes objected, and the new agreement did not receive the approval of three-fourths of the Kiowa. However, the tribe failed in its effort to enforce compliance with the treaty in the Supreme Court decision Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in 1903. In the spring following the negotiation of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek, the Peace Commission negotiated an equally ill-fated treaty with the Sioux at Fort Laramie and then in the summer had much better luck with the previously described treaty with the Navajo. In late 1868, the Peace Commission members agreed among themselves that tribes should not be considered independent nations, and this helped to end treaty making in 1871. In its final report of 1868 to President Andrew Johnson, the commission declared, “The history of the Government connections with the Indians is a shameful record of broken treaties and unfulfilled promises” and declared their treatment to be “unjust and iniquitous beyond the power of words to express.” The commission’s report stated, “The history of the border white man’s connection with the Indians is a sickening record of murder, outrage, robbery, and wrongs committed by the former as the rule, and occasional savage outbreaks and unspeakable barbarous deeds of retaliation by the latter as the exception” (Annual Report 1869, 7).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

272

Regional Essays

When General Ulysses S. Grant, who had served in the army in the West, became president in 1869, he continued a peace policy that reflected the reports of the previous Peace Commissions. In his first inaugural address he declared, “The proper treatment of the original occupants of this land—the Indians—is one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course toward them which tends to their civilization and ultimate citizenship” (Richardson 1910, 3962). He appointed a Seneca Indian as his commissioner of Indian affairs, his Civil War aide Brigadier General Ely S. Parker, who served from 1869 to 1871. As a measure to halt Indian Office corruption and promote peace, Grant also appointed a Board of Indian Commissioners to supervise the appointment of Indian agents, teachers, and farmers as well as the buying of supplies. This board continued to operate until 1933; however, it soon lost most of its power. The board divided up Indian agencies among thirteen different religious groups. However, it was the Civil Service reforms of the 1890s that finally ended the spoils system, which based the appointment of Indian agents and other government positions on political support rather than job qualifications. While the Navajo, Apache, and Comanche generated the most treaties, other tribes lived in the Southwest as well. The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona, who lived in permanent villages, did not fit the stereotype of the nomadic Indian. When the Spanish retook New Mexico after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, the Pueblos resigned themselves to the presence of colonists; because of this, peace treaties were never signed. Although squatters infringed on their traditional lands, these tribes did not suffer the massive displacement that more nomadic tribes continued to face as settlers. Similarly, the many smaller tribes of Arizona, including the Pima, Maricopa, Hualapai, Mojave, Havasupai, and Hopi, never made treaties with the United States. A year after the United States invaded New Mexico in 1846, the new territorial legislature recognized each Pueblo village as a separate group and basically confirmed the old Spanish land grants, which were again confirmed in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, which ended the war with Mexico. A Pueblo Indian agency was established in 1849. However, in 1876 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Pueblos of New Mexico were not Indians. In U.S. v. Joseph (94 U.S. 614), the Court

www.abc-clio.com

declared that the Pueblo Indians “had nothing in common” with the Navajo, Apache, and Comanche, were not wards of the government subject to control of U.S. Indian agents, and could sell their property as they saw fit. This decision was reversed in 1913 in U.S. v. Sandoval, and in 1924 Congress established the Pueblo Lands Board to resolve claims of nonIndians to Pueblo lands. A treaty in 1848 with the Zuni, which was not submitted to Congress, required the Zuni to obey the laws of the United States and the Territory of New Mexico in return for being “protected in the full enjoyment of all its rights of personal property and religion.” Another treaty not submitted to Congress was made in 1850 by Indian agent James S. Calhoun with ten other Pueblos, who agreed to being “governed by their own laws and customs, and such authorities as they may prescribe, subject only to the controlling power of the Government of the United States.” The United States also made treaties with various bands of Ute in 1855, 1865, and 1866, which the Senate failed to ratify. Initially given the whole of eastern Colorado for a reservation, the discovery of gold there in the 1860s brought a quick reduction in territory. The treaty with the Ute in 1865 provided for the cession of land in exchange for the entire valley of the Unitah River in Utah, plus $25,000 per year for ten years, then $20,000 for twenty years, and thereafter $15,000 per year, based on an estimated population of five thousand Ute. The treaty also banned liquor and provided for the establishment and maintenance of a manual labor school for ten years. In 1878, an agreement with the Capote, Muache, and Weeminuche bands of Ute, consented to by the Yampa, Grand River, Uintah, and Tabequache bands, also ceded lands. An agreement of 1911 with the Wiminuche band of Southern Ute traded land to get them to relinquish claims to land in Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Besides the treaties with Spain, Mexico, Texas, and the United States, there were also treaties made between Indian nations. In 1858, a treaty of permanent peace and friendship was made at the Ute agency in Taos, New Mexico, between the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Apache, represented by an Arapaho named Guatanamo, and the Muahuache Ute, Jicarilla Apache, and Pueblo of Taos. The treaty was signed in the presence of Christopher (Kit) Carson, the Ute Indian agent. Another treaty, made at Fort

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Southern Plains and the Southwest

Yuma, California, in 1863 between the Mojave, Pima, Papago, Maricopa, Yuma, Chemehuevi, and Hualapai called for these tribes to be at peace with each other, to join in war against the Apaches, and to protect Americans. The United States had a consistent policy of opening relatively sparsely populated, fertile Indian lands to white settlement. This policy was tempered by the cost of the Indian wars caused by this continued encroachment of setters, and, especially after the Civil War, by a humanitarian desire to civilize the Indian. Treaty after treaty tried to stop unrestricted encroachment by settlers on Indian lands and to control the sale of liquor to Indians, but the U.S. government had no more success with these efforts to pacify the frontier than it has today in trying to stem the influx of illegal immigrants and drugs. Jon Reyhner References and Further Reading Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1869. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

www.abc-clio.com

273

Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kavanagh, Thomas W. 1996. The Comanches: A History 1706–1875. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. ed. 2000. Documents of United States Indian Policy, 3rd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Richardson, James D., ed. 1910. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Literature and Art. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings Tribal Name Abenaki (western) Absaroke Adai Adamstown Alabama Aleut Anadarko Anishinabe Apache

Apache Mohave Appomattoc Arapahoe Arikara Assiniboine Athapaskan Atsina Aztec Bannock Bear River Indians Bellabella Bellacoola Beothuk Blackfeet/Blackfoot Blood Boothroyd Brule Sioux Caddo Cahuilla Calusa Campo Carrier Catawba Cayuga Cayuse Chakchiuma Chehalis Chemainus

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Alnonba, Abnaki Crow Nateo Upper Mattaponi Alibamu Alutiiq, Unangan Nadaco Chippewa, Ojibwa N de,Tinneh, Dine, Tinde, Unde, Shis Inde, Aravaipa, Bedonkohe, Chihene, Chiricahua, Chokonen, Cibecue, Jicarilla, Kiowa, Lipan, Mescalero, Mimbres, Nednhi, Tonto, Yuma Yavapai Apamatuks Inunaina, Atsina Northern Pawnee, Ricara, Ree Hohe Dene Haaninin Nahua, Nahuatl Panaiti Niekeni Heiltsuqu, Heiltsuk Nuxalk Beathunk, Betoukuag, Macquajeet, Red Indians, Skraelling, Ulno Niitsitapi, Nitsi-tapi, Piegan, Ahpikuni, Pikuni (northern); Siksika, Sisaka (southern), Sihasapa, Ahkainah Kainai, Ahkainah Chomok Si can gu Adai, Eyeish, Hasinai, Hainai, Kadohodacho, Kadohadacho Confederacy, Natchitoches Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Kawasic, Morongo, Los Coyotes, Painakic, Wanikik Caloosa, Calos, Calosa, Carlos, Muspa Kumeyaay Dakelh, Wet’suwet’en Esaw, Iswa, Iyeye, Nieye, Ushery Kweniogwen, Iroquois Wailetpu, Te-taw-ken Shaktci Homma Copalis, Humptulips, Qwaya, Satsop, Sts’Ailes, Wynoochee Tsa-mee-nis

R-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-2

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Chemehuevi Chetco Cherokee Cheyenne Chilcotin Chimakum Chippewa Chitimacha Choctaw Chumash Clackamas Clallam Cocopah Coeur d’Alene Comanche Comox Copane Cora Coree Coushatta Cree Creek Crow Cupenos Cuthead Dakelh Delaware Dieguenos Ditidaht Eskimo Equimalt Fox Gabrieleno Ganawese Gitanyow Gitxsan Goshute Gros Ventre Gwich’in Hainai Havasupai Heiltsuk Hidatsa Hohokam Hopi Hualapai Huichol

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Nuwu, Tantawats Tolowa Tsa-la-gi, Ani-yun-wiya, Anikituhwagi, Keetowah Dzi tsi stas, Sowonia (southern), O mi sis (northern), Tse-tsehesestaestse Esdilagh, Tl’esqox, Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in Aqokdlo Anishinabe, Ojibwa Chawasha, Pantch-pinunkansh, Washa, Yagenechito Chakchiuma, Chatot, Cha’ta Santa Barbara Indians Guithlakimas S’klallam, Nusklaim, Tlalem Xawitt Kunyavaei Skitswish, Schee chu’umsch, Schitsu’umsh Detsanayuka, Kotsoteka, Nermernuh, Noconi, Nokoni, Numunuu, Padouca (Sioux word), Penateka, Pennande, Quahadi, Yamparika Catloltx Kopano, Quevenes Nayarit Coranine Koasati, Acoste Kenistenoag, Iyiniwok, Nehiawak or Nay-hee-uh-wuk (Plains Cree), Sah-cow-ee-noo-wuk (bush Cree) Muscogee, Abihika, Abeika, Hitchiti, Homashko Absaroke, Apsaalooke Kuupangaxwichem Pabaksa Carrier Lenni Lenape, Lenape, Abnaki, Alnanbai, Wampanoag, Munsee, Unami, Unalachitgo, Powhatan-Renápe Comeya, Tipai, Ipai, Kumeyaay Nitinaht Inuit, Inupiat, Inuvialuit, Yupik, Alutiiq Is-Whoy-Malth Mesquaki, Meskwaki, Mshkwa’kiitha Tongva Conoys, Piscataways Kitwancool Tsimshian Kusiutta Atsina (prairie), Hidatsa (Missouri), A’ani’, Ah-ah-nee-nin, Minnetaree Loucheux Ioni Suppai Hailhazakv Gros Venture Hoo-hoogam Hopitu, Hopitu Shinumu, Moqui, Hapeka Hwal’bay, Walapai Wirrarika, Wixalika

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-3

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Hupa Huron Ingalik Athapaskans Iowa Iroquois Jemez Jicarilla Apache Kalispel Kamia Kansa Kato Keres Kickapoo Kiowa Kiowa Apache Klamath Klickitat Kootenai Koso Karok Ktunaxa Kumeyaay Kutchin Kutenai Lancandon Lemhi Shoshone Loucheux Lillooet Lipan Lower Sioux Luiseño Lumbee Maicopa Makah Mandan Manhattan Manso Maricopa Miami Micmac Miniconjou Mi’kmaq Missouri Mixtec Moapa Modoc Mohave Mohawk Mohican Molala

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Natinnohhoi Wendat, Wyandot Deg Het’an Pahodja Haudenosaunee, Hodenosaunee, Ongwanosionni, Hotinonshonni Tuwa Tinde Pend d’Oreilles Tipai Hutanga, Kansas, Kanza, Kaw, Tlokeang Pueblo, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Zia Kiwigapawa Kwuda, Tepda, Tepkinago, Gaigwu, Kompabianta, Kauigu Nadiisha Dena Eukshikni Maklaks, Auksni Qwulhhwaipum Kuronoqa, Kutenai, Kootenay, Yaqan nukiy, Akun’kunik’, Ktunaxa Panamint Karuk, Arra-arra Kootenay Diegueño, Barona, Sycuan, Viejas, Campo, Cuyapaipe, Ewiiaapaayp Gwich’in Asanka Maya, Hach Winik Agaidika, Salmon Eaters, Tukudika, Sheep Eater Gwich’in Lil’wat, St’át’imc, T’it’kit Naizhan Mdewakanton, Wahpekute Ataxum, La Jolla, Pechanga, Soboba, Quechnajuichom Cheraw Xalychidom Piipaash, Pipatsji Kwenetchechat, Kwi-dai-da’ch Metutahanke or Mawatani (after 1837), Numakaki (before 1837) Rechgawawank Maise, Mansa, Manse, Manxo, Gorreta, Gorrite, Tanpachoa Xalychidom Piipaash, Xalchidom Pii-pash, Pipatsje, Pee-posh Twightwis, Twa-h-twa-h, Oumameg, Pkiiwileni Mi’kmaq Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Minnicoujou Lnu’k, L’nu’k Niutachi Ñusabi, Nusabi Moapariats Moatokni, Okkowish Mojave, Tzinamaa, Ahamakav, Hamakhava Kanienkahaka, Kaniengehage, Abenaki, Iroquois, Akwesasne Muh-he-con-neok, Mahikan, Mahican Latiwe

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-4

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Mono Moratoc Mosopelea Munsee Muscogee Nanticoke Navajo Nez Perce Nisga’a Nootka Northern Ojibwa Nuu-chah-nulth Nuxalk Ogallala Ojibwa Okanagon Omaha Oneida Onondaga Oohenupa Osage Ottawa Otto Oulaouaes Oweekeno Pacheenaht Paiute Papagos Parianuc Passamaquoddy Patchogue Pawnee Pechanga Pecos Pend d’Oreilles Penobscot Petun Piegan Pima Piro Pit River Poosepatuck Popolucas Pyramid Lake Paiute Quapaw Quechan Quileute Quinault Sac and Fox Sahwnee

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Monache Nottoway Ofom Minasinink, Homenethiki Creek, Homashko Unalachtgo, Onehtikoki Diné, Dineh, Tenuai, Navaho Nee-me-poo, Nimipu, Kamuinu, Tsutpeli, Sahaptin, Chopunnish Tsimshian Nuu-chah-nulth Saulteaux, Sauteux Nootka Kimsquit, Kwalhnmc, South Bentick Sutslmc, Taliyumc Okandanda Chippewa, Anishinabe, Missisauga, Odjbway, Saginaw Isonkuaili UmonHon Iroquois Iroquois Two Kettle, Oohenonpa Wa-Shah-She, Wakon, Wazhazhe Adawe, Otawaki Chewaerae Necariages Kwakiutl, Oweehena Nootka Numa, Nuwuvi, Kuyuiticutta Tohono O’odham, Ak-chin, Yohono Au’autam White River Utes Peskedemakddi Unkechaug Pariki, Panyi, Chahiksichahiks, Ckirihki Kuruuriki Luiseño Pueblos from Jemez Kalispel Pannawanbskek, Penaubsket Khionontateronon, Tionontati Blood, Kainai, Pikuni, Pigunni, Ahpikuni Onk Akimel Au-authm, Akimel O’odham, A-atam, Akimul Au’autam, Tohono O’odham (incorrectly) Tortuga Achomawi, Atsugewi Unkechaug Chochos Kuyuidokado Quapah, Akansea, Ouaguapas, Ugakhpa Yuma Quil-leh-ute Qui-nai-elts Sauk, Asakiwaki, Meshkwakihug, Fox Shawadasay

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-5

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Salish Saanich Sans Arc Santee Saponi Sauk Scioto Seminole Seneca Serrano Shawnee Shoshone Sioux

Sissipahaw Skagit Skoskomish Squinamish Slotas Songish Southern Paiute St. Francis St. Mary’s Indian Band St. Regis Mohawk Stockbridge Snuneymuxw Susquehanna Taidnapam Tarahumara Taviwac Tejas Tenino Tequistlatecos Teton Tewa Thompson Tigua Tillamook Timucua T’it’kit Tiwa Tlaoquiaht Tlatlasikwala Tobacco Toltec Tonkawa Tubatulabal

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Okinagan, Slathead Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tsartlip, Tseycum, Malahat Itazipco Sisseton Monasukapanough Hothaaki, Sac, Sack, Sock, Thakiki (Five Nations of the Scioto Plains) Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware, Munsee, Seneca Ikaniuksalgi, Alachua, Mikasuki Iroquois Cowangachem, Mohineyam, Qawishwallanavetum, Yuhavitam Savannah, Chillicothe, Hathawekela, Mequachake, Piqua Shoshoni, Snake, Nimi, Tukudeka, Agaidika Brule, Dakota, Hunkpapa, Isanyati, Itazipco, Lakota, Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Nakota, Ocheti Shakowin, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu, Sihasapa, Sisseton, Sisitonwan, Teton, Titunwan Haw Humaluh Twana Swinomish Red River Metis Lkungen Numa Abenaki A’qam, Ktunaxa Akwesasne, Kaniengehage Mahican Nanaimo Susquehannock, Conestoga, Minqua, Andaste Upper Cowlitz Raramuri Uncompahgre Ute Hasinai, Cenis Melilema Chontales of Oaxaca Brule, Hunkpapa, Itazipco, Mnikowoju, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu, Sihasapa, Titunwan Pueblo, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Tesuque Nlaka’pamux Pueblo, Tiwa, Tortuga Killamuck Utina, Acuera Lillooet Pueblo, Tortuga Clayoquot Nuwitti Khionontateronon, Tionontati Chiaimeca Mochanecatoca Titskan Watitch, Titskanwatitch, Tonkaweya Bahkanapul, Kern River

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-6

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Tunica Tuscarora Tututni Twana Two Kettle Umpqua Uncompahgre Ute Upper Chehalis Upper Sioux Ute

Viejas Wampanoag Wappo Warm Springs Wasco Watlala Wea Whilkut Winnebago Wichita Winik Wishram Wyandot Yakama Yaqui Yazoo Yoncalla Yuchi Yuma Zapotec Zuni

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Yoron Skarure, Iroquois, Coree Tolowa Tuadhu Oohenonpa, Oohenupa Etnemitane Taviwac Kwaiailk Sisseton, Wahpeton Noochi, Notch, Nuciu, Yamparka, Parianuc, Taviwac, Wiminuc, Kapota, Muwac, Cumumba, Tumpanuwac, Uinta-ats, Pahvant, San Pitch, and Sheberetch Quimi Pokanoket Ashochimi Tilkuni Galasquo Katlagakya Eel River, Gros, Kilataks, Mangakekis, Pepicokia, Peticotias, Piankeshaw, Wawiyatanwa Redwood Indians Winipig Kitikiti’sh, Wia Chitch (Choctaw word) Maya Ilaxluit, Tlakluit Huron, Talamatans Waptailmin, Pakiutlema, Yakima Yoeme, Surem, Hiakim Chakchiuma Tchayankeld Chisa Quechan, Euqchan Binigulaza Ashiwi, Taa Ashiwani

Source: Phil Konstantin

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-7

Tribal Name Meanings Tribal Name A’ani’ Abnaki Achomawi Acolapissa Agaidika Ahousaht Ahtena Aitchelitz Akun’kunik’ Akwesasne Alabama Apache Apalachicola Apalachee A’qam Arikara Assiniboine Atakapa Atsina Atsugewi Avoyel Bayogoula Bedonkohe (Apache) Bidai Binigulaza Brule Caddo Cahuilla Calusa Canim Catawba Cayuga Cayuse Chakchiuma Cheam Chehalis Chemehuevi Cherokee Cheslatta Chetco Cheyenne Chickahominy Chihene (Apache) Chilcotin Chipewyan Chitimacha Chokonen (Apache) Chontal Choula

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning white clay people those living at the sunrise (easterners) river, people that live at the river those who listen and see salmon eaters facing opposite from the ocean, people living with their backs to the land and mountains ice people bottom people of the place of the flying head land where the partridge drums I clear the thicket enemy (Zuni word) people of the other side people of the other side people of the dense forest or brush horns or elk people, or corn eaters ones who cook using stones (Ojibwa word) man eater white clay people hat creek indians people of the rocks people of the bayou in front at the end people brushwood (Caddo word) people of the clouds burned thighs true chiefs leader, master, powerful nation (all questionable) fierce people canoe, broken rock river people place where boats were taken out, place locusts were taken out, people at the mucky land people of the stones or rocks (French-Canadian word) red crawfish people wild strawberry place, the place to always get strawberries sand, beating heart those that play with fish (Mojave word) cave people (Choctaw word), people of different speech (Creek word) top of a small mountain, small rock mountain at the east side close to the mouth of the stream red talkers (Dakota word), little Cree (Lakota word) hominy people red paint people young man river pointed skins (Cree word) men altogether red, they have cooking vessels rising sun people stranger (Nahuatl word) fox

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-8

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Chowanoc Chumash Clallam Clatsop Clayoquot Cocopah Coeur d’Alene Comanche Comox Cowichan Crow Dakelh Dakota Ehdiitat Gwich’in Erie Eskimo Esquimalt Fox Gingolx Gitanmaax Gitwangak Gwich’in Gros Ventre Hach winik Hagwilget Han Haudenosaunee Havasupai Heiltsuk Hesquiaht Hidatsa Hiute Hohokam Honniasont Hopi Houma Hualapai Huchnom Huichol Hul’qumi’num Hunkpapa Hupa Huron Hwal’bay (Hualapai) Ihanktonwan Ihanktonwana Iowa Iroquois Jatibonicu Jatibonuco

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning people at the south people who make the shell bead money strong people dried salmon people of other tribes river people those who are found here or heart of an awl (French words) anyone who wants to fight me all the time (Ute word) place of abundance warm country, land warmed by the sun crow, sparrowhawk, bird people, people of the large-beaked bird people who travel by water allie people who live among timber or spruce long tail or cat people (Iroquois word) eaters of raw meat (Algonquin or Cree word) the place of gradually shoaling water red earth people the place of the skulls people who fish with burning torches place of rabbits people who live at a certain place big bellies, one who cooks with a stone, he cooks by roasting (see Atsina) true people gentle or quiet people those who live along the river people of the long house, people of the extended lodge people of the blue green water to speak or act correctly people of the sound made by eating herring eggs off eel grass willow (speculation) bowmen those who have gone wearing something around the neck peaceful ones, people who live in a peaceful way red people of the tall pines mountain people healers those who speak the same language campers at the opening of the circle trinity river ruffian (French word) people of the tall pines dwellers at the end little dwellers at the end sleepy ones (Dakota word) real adders (Algonquian word) or we of the extended lodge people of the great sacred high waters great people of the sacred high waters

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-9

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Jicaque Jicarilla Kainai Kamloops Kan-hatki Kanienkahaka Kanza Karok Kaskaskia Kato Kawchottine Ketsei Kickapoo Kiowa Kispiox Kitamaat Kitkatla Kitselas Kitsumkalum Klallam Klamath Klickitat Kluskus Kotsoteka Kutcha-kutchin Kuupangaxwichem Kuyuidokado Kwalhioqua Kwayhquitlum Kwuda Lakota Latgawa Lenni Lenape Lheidli T’enneh Lillooet Loucheux Machapunga Mahican Makah Malahat Maliseet Maricopa Massachuset Matsqui Mdewankantonwan Menominee Metlakatla Miami Michigamea Mimbres (Apache)

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning ancient person (Nahuatl word) little basket weaver (Spanish word) many chiefs the meeting of the waters white earth people of the place of flint people of the south wind upstream he scrapes it off by means of a tool lake people of the great hares going in wet sand he stands about principal people, pulling out, coming out, people of the large tent flaps people of the hiding place people of the falling snow people of the salt, village by the sea people of the canyon people of the plateau strong people people of the lake beyond (Chinook word) place of small whitefish buffalo eaters those who live on the flats people who slept here cui-ui eaters lonely place in the woods (Chinook word) stinking fish slime people coming out friend or ally (same with Dakota and Nakota) those living in the uplands genuine men people of the confluence of the two rivers wild onion people with slanted or crossed eyes bad dust wolf (incorrect translation per the Mohican Nation, StockbridgeMunsee Band) cape people infested with caterpillars, place where one gets bait broken talkers people who live toward the water at the hills easy portage, easy travelling dwellers of the spirit lake wild rice men a passage connecting two bodies of salt water people on the peninsula, cry of the crane great water willow (Spanish word)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-10

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Miniconjou Minnetaree Minqua Missouri Moapa Moatokni Modoc Mohave Mohawk Mohegan Mohican Moneton Munsee Musqueam Nahane Nak’azdli Narragansett Nanticoke Nanoose Natsit-kutchin Navajo Nehalem Nicomen Nihtat Gwich’in Nipmuck Nokoni Nooksack Nootka Nusabi Oglala Ojibwa Okanagan Okelousa Okmulgee Omaha Oneida Onondaga Opata Ottawa Otto Oweekeno Pahodja Pakiutlema Pamunkey Pantch-pinunkansh Papagos Pascagoula Passamaquoddy Paugusset Pawnee Pechanga

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning planters by water they crossed the water stealthy great muddy, people with wooden canoes mosquito creek people southerners southerners three mountains, people of the water/river the possessors of the flint, coward or man eater (Abenaki words) wolf the people of the waters that are never still big water people at the place where the stones are gathered together place always to get iris plant root people of the west when arrows were flying people of the small point people of the tidewaters to push forward those who live off the flats cultivated field in an arroyo (Tewa word) where the people live level part people living together as a mixture freshwater fishing place those who turn back mountain men along the coast people of the clouds scatters their own to roast till puckered up head, top of head blackwater where water boils up upstream people or people going against the current a boulder standing up, people of the standing stone people on top of the hills hostile people (Pima word) to trade lechers those who carry on the back, people talking right dusty nones people of the gap rising upland men altogether red desert people, bean people bread people plenty of pollock where the narrows open out horn people, men of men, look like wolves place where the water drips

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-11

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Penateka Penelakut Pennacook Penobscot Pensacola Penticton People of the lakes Peoria Pequot Piegan Piikani Pilthlako Pima Pojoaque Potawatomi Powhatan Pshwanwapam Puyallup Qawishwallanavetum Quahadi Qualicum Quapaw Quatsino Qwulhhwaipum Raramuri Sac (Sauk) Salish Sans Arc Schaghticoke Schitsu’umsh Sekani Semiahmoo Seminole Seneca Shawnee Sicangu Sihasapa Sioux Siksika Sioux Sisitonwan Siska Skidegate Skokomish Skookumchuck Snuneymuxw Spallumcheen Spokane Spuzzum Sts’Ailes

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning honey eaters something buried down hill it forks on the white rocks or the descending ledge place, at the stone place hair people permanent place, always place tribes near the great lakes carrying a pack on his back fox people or destroyers scabby robes poor robe big swamp river people drinking place people of the place of the fire, keepers of the fire (fire nation, fire people) falls in a current of water stony ground shadow people that live among the rocks antelope where the dog salmon run downstream people downstream people prairie people foot runner people of the yellow earth or people of the outlet flatheads without bows at the river forks the ones that were found here dwellers on the rocks half moon separatist or breakaway, peninsula people place of stone, people of the standing rock, great hill people south or southerners burned thighs blackfeet blackfeet snake (French version of other tribe’s name) dwellers of the fish ground uncle, lots of cracks in the rocks red paint stone river people strong water people of many names flat along edge sun people or children of the sun (generally accepted) little flat the beating heart

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-12

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Sumas Tahltan Taino Takelma Tamarois Tanima Tangipahoa Tantawats Tarahumara Tatsanottine Tawakoni Teetl’it Gwich’in Tejas Tenawa Tennuth-ketchin Teton Tewa Thlingchadinne Titonwan Tl’azt’en Toltec Tonawanda Tonkawa Toquaht Tsa-mee-nis Tsattine Tsawout Tsawwassen Tsay Keh Dene Tsetsaut Tseycum Tsleil-Waututh Tubatulabal Tukudika Tuscarora Two Kettle Uchuckledaht Ulkatcho Unalachtgo Viniintaii Gwich’in Vuntut Gwitch’in Vvunta-ketchin Wahpekute Wahpetonwan Wailaki Wakokai Walapai Wallawalla Wampanoag Wappo Waptailmin

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning big flat opening something heavy in the water we the good people those living along the river out tail liver eaters corn gatherers southern men foot runner people of the copper water river bend among red hills people who live at the head of the waters friendly down stream middle people dwellers of the prairie moccasins dog-flank people dwellers of the plains people by the edge of the bay master builders (Nahuatl word) confluent stream they all stay together or most human of people people of the narrow place in front, people of the narrow channel bitten breast lives among the beavers houses raised up beach at the mouth, facing the sea people of the mountains people of the interior (Niska word) clay people people of the inlet pinenut eaters (Shoshone word) sheep eater hemp gatherers, the shirt wearing people two boilings there inside the bay good feeding place where animals get fat tidewater people people who live on or by the caribou trail dwellers among the lakes those who live among the lakes shooters amoung the leaves dwellers amoung the leaves north language (Wintun word) blue heron breeding place pine tree people little river eastern people brave people of the narrow river

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-13

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Wasco Wea Whel mux Wichita Winnebago Wiwohka Wyandot Yakama Yamparika Yaqan nukiy Yavapai Yoncalla Yuchi Yuhavitam Yuki Yurok

Meaning cup, those who have the cup the forest people, light-skinned ones, people who live near the river eddy people of spirit, people of breath big arbor (Choctaw word) filthy water people roaring water people of the peninsula, islanders runaway rooteaters or yapeaters the people where the rock is standing people of the sun, crooked mouth people those living at ayankeld situated yonder people of the pines stranger (Wintun word) downstream (Karok word)

Source: Phil Konstantin

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-14

Resources

Treaties by Tribe Tribe Aionai

Treaty Name Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Anadarko

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Apache

Treaty with the Apache, 1852 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Appalachicola

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1832 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1833

Arapaho

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, 1861 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1867 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851 Treaty with the Sioux—Brulé, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee—and Arapaho

Arikara

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, 1825 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Assinaboine

Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Bannock

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, 1825

Blackfeet

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865

Blood

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

Brothertown

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838

Caddo

Treaty with the Caddo, 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Cahokia

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-15

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Cayuga

Treaty Name Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Cayuse

Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Chasta

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

Cherokee

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1791 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1794 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1798 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1804 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1806 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1817 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1819 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, 1828 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, 1833 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1846 [Western Cherokee] Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1868 Agreement with the Cherokee, 1835 (Unratified) Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Cheyenne

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, 1861 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1867 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Chickasaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1786 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1801 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1805 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1816 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-16

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Chickasaw (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1834 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1837 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1852 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1854 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1855 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

Chippewa

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1819 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1826 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1836 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1838 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1839 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, 1847 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1859 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, and Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Forte Band, 1866 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, 1867 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, 1847 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, 1855 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., 1828

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-17

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Chippewa (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Choctaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1837 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1786 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1801 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1802 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1803 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1805 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1816 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1820 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1825 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1854 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1855 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, 1865

Clack-A-Mas

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855

Columbia

Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, 1883

Colville

Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, 1883

Comanche

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Creeks

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Creeks, 1790 Treaty with the Creeks, 1796 Treaty with the Creeks, 1802 Treaty with the Creeks, 1805 Treaty with the Creeks, 1814 Treaty with the Creeks, 1818 Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 Treaty with the Creeks, 1825 Treaty with the Creeks, 1826

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-18

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Creeks (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Creeks, 1827 Treaty with the Creeks, 1832 Treaty with the Creeks, 1833 Treaty with the Creeks, 1838 Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole, 1845 Treaty with the Creeks, 1854 Treaty with the Creeks, Etc., 1856 Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 Agreement with the Creeks, 1825 (Unratified)

Crow

Treaty with the Crow Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Crows, 1868 Agreement with the Crows, 1880 (Unratified) Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Dakota

Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

De Chutes

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Delaware

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, 1804 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Delawares, 1818 Treaty with the Delawares, 1829 Treaty with the Delawares, 1829 Treaty with the Delawares, 1854 Treaty with the Delawares, 1860 Treaty with the Delawares, 1861 Treaty with the Delawares, 1866 Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot, 1843 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Dwamish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Eel River

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-19

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Eel River (cont.)

Treaty Name Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Miami, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Five Nations

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Flathead

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Fox

Treaty with the Foxes, 1815

Gros Ventres

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Illinois

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Iowa

Treaty with the Iowa, 1815 Treaty with the Iowa, 1824. Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., 1836. Treaty with the Iowa, 1837 Treaty with the Iowa, 1838 Treaty with the Iowa, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1861 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

Kalapuya

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, 1854

Kansa

Treaty with the Kansa, 1815 Treaty with the Kansa, 1825 Treaty with the Kansa, 1825 Treaty with Kansa Tribe, 1846 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, 1859 Treaty with the Kansa Indians, 1862

Kaskaskia

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Ka-Ta-Ka

Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837

Keechy

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-20

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Kickapoo

Treaty Name Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1809 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1815 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1832 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1854 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1862 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Kik-Ial-Lus

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Kiowa

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, 1865 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Klamath

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864

Kootenay

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Lepan

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Long-Wha

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Lummi

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Makah

Treaty with the Makah, 1815 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Makah, 1855

Mandan

Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, 1825 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Me-Sek-Wi-Guilse

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Menominee

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Menominee, 1817 Treaty with the Menominee, 1831 Treaty with the Menominee, 1831 Treaty with the Menominee, 1832 Treaty with the Menominee, 1836 Treaty with the Menominee, 1848 Treaty with the Menominee, 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-21

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Menominee (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Menominee, 1856 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

Miami

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Miami, 1818 Treaty with the Miami, 1826 Treaty with the Miami, 1828 Treaty with the Miami, 1834 Treaty with the Miami, 1838 Treaty with the Miami, 1840 Treaty with the Miami, 1854 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815

Middle Oregon Tribes

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Minitaree or Belantse-Etoa

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, 1825

Mitchigamia

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Modoc

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864

Mohawk

Treaty with the Mohawk, 1797 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Molala

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Molala, 1855

Muscogee

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Munsee

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1859 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1839 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1856 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805

Navajo

Treaty with the Navaho, 1849 Treaty with the Navaho, 1868

New York Indians

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838

Nez Percé

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-22

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Nex Percé (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1855 Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1863 Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1868

Nisqually

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Noo-Wha-Ha

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Omaha

Treaty with the Omaha, 1854 Treaty with the Omaha, 1865 Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830

Oneida

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Oneida, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Onondaga

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Osage

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Osage, 1808 Treaty with the Osage, 1815 Treaty with the Osage, 1818 Treaty with the Osage, 1822 Treaty with the Osage, 1825 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, 1825 Treaty with the Osage, 1839 Treaty with the Osage, 1865

Oto

Treaty with the Oto, 1817

Oto & Missouri

Treaty with the Confederated Oto and Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, 1833 Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830

Ottawa

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-23

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Ottawa (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Ottawa, 1831 Treaty with the Ottawa, 1833 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche De Bœuf, 1862 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Pawnee

Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, 1818 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Pawnee, 1833 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., 1848 Treaty with the Pawnee, 1857

Peoria

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867

Piankeshaw

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, 1804 Treaty with the Piankashaw, 1805 Treaty with the Piankashaw, 1815 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea, 1832 Agreement with the Piankeshaw, 1818 (Unratified) Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Piegan

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-24

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Ponca

Treaty Name Treaty with the Ponca, 1817 Treaty with the Ponca, 1825 Treaty with the Ponca, 1858 Treaty with the Ponca, 1865

Potawatomi

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1815 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1818 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1826 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1827 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1828 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1837 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1861 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1866 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-25

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Puyallup

Treaty Name Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Quapaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Quapaw,1818 Treaty with the Quapaw, 1824 Treaty with the Quapaw, 1833 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867

Qui-Nai-Elt

Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., 1855

Quil-Leh-Ute

Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., 1855

Ricara

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, 1825 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Rogue River

Treaty with the Rogue River, 1853 Treaty with the Rogue River, 1854 Agreement with the Rogue River, 1853 (Unratified)

Sac & Fox

Treaty with the Fox, 1815 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., 1836. Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1804 Treaty with the Sauk, 1815 Treaty with the Sauk, 1816 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1822 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1824 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1832 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1842 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1859 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1861 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789

Sa-Heh-Wamish

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Sah-Ku-Meh-Hu

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Scotons

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-26

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Seminole

Treaty Name Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole, 1845 Treaty with the Creeks, Etc., 1856 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, 1823 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 Treaty with the Seminole, 1833 Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

Seneca

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Seneca, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca, 1831 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., 1831 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, 1842 Treaty with the Seneca, Tonawanda Band, 1857. Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Agreement with the Seneca, 1797 Agreement with the Seneca, 1823 (Unratified) Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Seven Nations of Canada

Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, 1796

Shawnee

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., 1831 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1786 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1825 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1831 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1854 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-27

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Shawnee (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

S’homamish

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Shoshoni

Treaty with the Eastern Shoshoni, 1863 Treaty with the Shoshoni—Northwestern Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Western Shoshoni, 1863 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

Shoshoni-Goship

Treaty with the Shoshoni-Goship, 1863

Sioux

Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865 Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes, 1825 (Also Ogallala) Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 — Yankton and Santee Bands Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 — Medawah-Kanton, Wahpacoota, Wahpeton, Sissetong [Sisseton], Yanckton [Yancton] and Santie Bands Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux, 1816 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, 1825 — Teton, Yancton and Yanctonies Bands Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Sioux, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux, 1837 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, 1851 Treaty with the Sioux—Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, 1851 (Also Med-ay-wa-kan-toan and Wah-pay-koo-tay) Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851 Treaty with the Sioux, 1858 — Mendawakanton and Wahpahoota Bands Treaty with the Sioux, 1858 — Sisseeton and Wahpaton Bands Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou Band, 1865 (Also Minneconjon) Treaty with the Sioux—Lower Brulé Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Hunkpapa Band, 1865 (Also Onkpahpah) Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, 1865 (Also Ogallala; O’Galla) Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, 1867 (Also Sissiton) Treaty with the Sioux—Brulé, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee—and Arapaho, Treaty with the Sioux, 1805

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-28

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Sioux (cont.)

Treaty Name Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, 1872 (Unratified) Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, 1873 — Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, 1882–83 (Unratified) — Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, and Lower Brulé Agencies Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1815 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1837 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1858

Six Nations

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Skai-Wha-Mish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Skagit

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

S’klallam

Treaty with the S’Klallam, 1855

Sk-Tah-Le-Jum

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Snake

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864 Treaty with the Snake, 1865

Snohomish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Snoqualmoo

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Squawskin

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Squi-Aitl

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Squin-Ah-Nush

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

St. Regis

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, 1796

Stehchass

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Steilacoom

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Stockbridge

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1839 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, 1848 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1856

Suquamish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Swinamish

Treaty Name Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Tah-Wa-Carro

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837

Tamarois

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Tenino

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Teton

Treaty with the Teton, 1815

Tonkawa

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

T’peek-Sin

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Tum-Waters

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855

Tuscarora

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Umatilla

Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Umpqua

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, 1853 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, 1854

Upper Pend D’oreille

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Utah

Treaty with the Utah, 1849 Treaty with the Utah—Tabeguache Band, 1863

Ute

Treaty with the Ute, 1868

Waco

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Walla-Walla

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855 Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Wasco

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Wea

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-29

R-30

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Wea (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wea, 1809 Treaty with the Wea, 1818 Treaty with the Wea, 1820 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Winnebago

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1816 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1829 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1832 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1837 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1846 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1855 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1859 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1865

Witchetaw

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Wyandot

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot, 1843 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1832 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1836 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1842 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1850 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1855

Yakima

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855

Source: Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1904). Digital copy courtesy of the Oklahoma State University Library Electronic Publishing Center

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-31

Common Treaty Names Common Name Albany, Treaty of Canandaigua Treaty Chicago, Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Doaksville, Treaty of Fort Bridger, Treaty of Fort Harmar, Treaty of

Fort Laramie, Treaty of Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Treaty of

Greenville, Treaty of Holston, Treaty of Hopewell, Treaty of Medicine Creek, Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of New Echota, Treaty of Northwest Angle Treaty Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Qu’Appelle Treaty St. Louis, Treaty of

www.abc-clio.com

Full Treaty Name Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684 Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833 Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17, 1837 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3, 1868 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789 (Addendum) Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix–November 5, 1768 Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795 Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791 Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho-–October 28, 1867 Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835 Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825 Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography Abele, Charles A. 1969. “The Grand Indian Council and Treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825,” Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago. Anderson, George E., W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Anderson, George E., and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. “Treaty-making by the Federal Government in California 1851–1852.” In Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 1–36. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Anderson, Harry. 1956. “The Controversial Sioux Amendment to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851.” Nebraska History 37 (September): 201–220. Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Balman, Gail. 1970. “The Creek Treaty of 1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Summer): 184–196. Barce, Elmore. 1915. “Governor Harrison and the Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.” Indiana Magazine of History 11 (December): 352–367. Barnes, Lela. 1936. “Isaac McCoy and the Treaty of 1821.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 5 (May): 122–142. Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock, eds. 1996. In the Name of the Salish and Kootenai Nation: The 1885 Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Pablo, MT: Salish Kootenai College Press/University of Washington Press. Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: Irwin. Bischoff, William N., and Charles M. Gates, eds. 1943. “The Jesuits and the Coeur D’Alene Treaty

of 1858.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 34 (April): 169–181. Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 12: 179. Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA: Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and Fisheries. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991. “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3): 40–45. Boyd, Mark F. 1958. “Horatio S. Dexter and Events Leading to the Treaty of Moultrie Creek with the Seminole Indians.” Florida Anthropologist, 11 (September): 65–95. Brooks, Drex, and Patricia Nelson Limerick. 1995. Sweet Medicine: Sites of Indian Massacres, Battlefields, and Treaties. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Bugge, David, and J. Lee Corell. 1971. The Story of the Navajo Treaties. Window Rock, AZ: Research Section, Navajo Parks and Recreation Department, Navajo Tribe. Burns, Robert Ignatius, ed. 1952. “A Jesuit at the Hell Gate Treaty of 1855.” Mid-American 34 (April): 87–114. Report of Adrian Hoechen. Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1916. “The Virginia Frontier in History–1778.” Part 5, “The Treaty of Fort Pitt.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 24 (April): 168–179. Campisi, Jack. 1988. “From Stanwix to Canandaigua: National Policy, States’ Rights, and Indian Land.” In Iroquois Land Claims, eds. Christopher Vecsey and William A. Starna, 49–65. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

B-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-2

Selected Bibliography

Campisi, Jack. 1988. “The Oneida Treaty Period, 1783–1838.” In The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Perspectives, eds. Jack Campisi and Laurence M. Hauptman, 48–64. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Canada. 1905. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680–1890. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Repr., Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1992. Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Clark, Blue. 1994. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Clifton, James A. 1980. “Chicago, September 14, 1833: The Last Great Indian Treaty in the Old Northwest.” Chicago History 9 (Summer): 86–97. Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. With contributions by Joan La France and Vivian L. Bowden. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cohen, Felix S. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Cohen, Handbook of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1975. Article Six, Treaties between the United States and the Several Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint. Costo, Rupert, and Jeannette Henry. 1977. Indian Treaties: Two Centuries of Dishonor. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press. Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1973. “They Would Not Be Moved: The Chippewa Treaty of 1854.” Minnesota History 43 (Spring): 174–185. Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Decker, Craig A. 1977. “The Construction of Indian Treaties, Agreements, and Statutes.” American Indian Law Review 5(2): 299–311. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. New York: Delacorte Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves: Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.” Arizona Law Review 38(3): 963–980. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1977. “American Indian Treaty Making: Motives and Meanings.” American Indian Journal 3 (January): 2–10. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen: Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed. Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties with the American Indians: Including a Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club. Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC Studies 3 (Fall), 3–57. Dustin, Fred. 1920. “The Treaty of Saginaw, 1819.” Michigan History Magazine 4 (January): 243–278. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. “‘Nothing Has Been Effected’: The Vincennes Treaty of 1792.” Indiana Magazine of History 74 (March): 23–35. Ellison, William H. 1978. “Rejection of California Indian Treaties: A Study in Local Influence on National Policy.” In Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 50–70. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Fay, George Emory. 1971. Treaties Between the Potawatomi Tribe of Indians and the United States of America, 1789–1867. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado. Fay, George Emory. 1972. Treaties and Land Cessions Between the Bands of the Sioux and the United States of America, 1805–1906. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado. Fay, George Emory. 1977. Treaties Between the Tribes of the Great Plains and the United States of America: Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1825–1900 Etc. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Fay, George Emory. 1982. Treaties Between the Tribes of the Great Plains and the United States of America: Comanche and Kiowa, Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan, 1835–1891. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado. Ferguson, Clyde R. 1979. “Confrontation at Coleraine: Creeks, Georgians and Federalist Indian Policy.” South Atlantic Quarterly 78 (Spring): 224–243. Ferguson, Robert B. 1985. “Treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation.” In The Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves, 214–230. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Fielder, Betty. 1955. “The Black Hawk Treaty.” Annals of Iowa 32 (January): 535–540. Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western History 49 (Spring): 2–17. Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty Rights and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): 178–211. Fisher, Robert L. 1933. “The Treaties of Portage des Sioux.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 19 (March): 495–508. Fixico, Donald L. 1984. “As Long as the Grass Grows . . . The Cultural Conflicts and Political Strategies of United States-Indian Treaties.” In Ethnicity and War, ed. Winston A. Van Horne, 128–149. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin System, American Ethnic Studies Committee/Urban Corridor Consortium. Foreman, Carolyn Thomas. 1955. “The Lost Cherokee Treaty.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 33 (Summer): 238–245. Foreman, Grant, ed. 1936. “The Journal of the Proceedings of Our First Treaty with the Wild Indians, 1835.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 14 (December): 394–418. Foreman, Grant. 1948. “The Texas Comanche Treaty of 1846.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 51 (April): 313–332. Franks, Kenny A. 1972–1973. “An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 50 (Winter): 458–473.

www.abc-clio.com

B-3

Franks, Kenny A. 1973. “The Impeachment of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 51 (Spring): 21–33. Gates, Charles M., ed. 1955. “The Indian Treaty of Point No Point.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 46 (April): 52–58. Gerwing, Anselm J. 1964. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of 1838.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 57 (Summer): 117–142. Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998. Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed. St. Paul: West. Gibson, Ronald V. 1977. Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy and Treaties Concluded by the Confederate States with Indian Tribes. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. Gold, Susan Dudley. 1997. Indian Treaties. New York: Twenty-First Century Books. Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J. McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Hagan, William T. 1956. “The Sauk and Fox Treaty of 1804.” Missouri Historical Review 51 (October): 1–7. Haines, Francis. 1964. “The Nez Perce Tribe versus the United States.” Idaho Yesterdays 8 (Spring): 18–25. Halbert, Henry S. 1902. “The Story of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 6: 373–402. Harmon, George D. 1929. “The North Carolina Cherokees and the New Echota Treaty of 1835.” North Carolina Historical Review 6 (July): 237–253. Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hawkinson, Ella. 1934. “The Old Crossing Chippewa Treaty and Its Sequel.” Minnesota History 15 (September): 282–300. Hawley, Donna Lea. 1990. The Annotated 1990 Indian Act: Including Related Treaties, Statutes, and Regulations. Toronto: Carswell. Hayden, Ralston. 1920. The Senate and Treaties, 1789–1817: The Development of the Treaty-Making Functions of the United States Senate during Their Formative Period. New York: Macmillan.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-4

Selected Bibliography

Heilbron, Bertha L. 1941. “Frank B. Mayer and the Treaties of 1851.” Minnesota History 22 (June): 133–156. Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Henderson, Archibald. 1931. “The Treaty of Long Island of Holston, July, 1777.” North Carolina Historical Review 8 (January): 55–116. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997. “Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law Review 36(1): 46. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000. “Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719. Henslick, Harry. 1970. “The Seminole Treaty of 1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Autumn): 280–294. Hill, Burton S. 1966. “The Great Indian Treaty Council of 1851.” Nebraska History 47 (March): 85–110. Holmes, Jack. 1969. “Spanish Treaties with West Florida Indians, 1784–1802.” Florida Historical Society, 48 (140–154). Hoover, Herbert T. 1989. “The Sioux Agreement of 1889 and Its Aftermath.” South Dakota History 19 (Spring): 56–94. Horsman, Reginald. 1961. “The British Indian Department and the Abortive Treaty of Lower Sandusky, 1793.” Ohio Historical Quarterly 70 (July): 189–213. Hosen, Fredrick E. 1985. Rifle, Blanket, and Kettle: Selected Indian Treaties and Laws. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Hough, Franklin B., ed. 1861. Proceedings of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Appointed by Law for the Extinguishment of Indian Titles in the State of New York. 2 vols. Albany, NY: Joel Munsell. Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1964. “The Creek Treaty of Washington, 1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 48 (December): 425–441. Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1968. “The Creek Treaty of November 15, 1827.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 52 (March): 1–15. Humphreys, A. Glen. 1971. “The Crow Indian Treaties of 1868: An Example of Power Struggle and Confusion in United States Indian Policy.” Annals of Wyoming 43 (Spring): 73–90. Ibbotson, Joseph D. 1938. “Samuel Kirkland, the Treaty of 1792, and the Indian Barrier State.” New York History 19 (October): 374–391.

www.abc-clio.com

Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook. 2nd ed. Scarborough, ON: Carswell. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and Beyond. Saskatoon: Purich. Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne, 1–6. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Jennings, Francis, ed. 1985. The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1969. “Medicine Lodge Revisited.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 35 (Summer): 130–142. Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. “A Most Satisfactory Council.” American Heritage 16 (October): 26–31, 70–76. Kane, Lucile M. 1951. “The Sioux Treaties and the Traders.” Minnesota History 32 (June): 65–80. Keller, Robert H. 1971. “On Teaching Indian History: Legal Jurisdiction in Chippewa Treaties.” Ethnohistory 19 (Summer): 209–218. Keller, Robert H. 1978. “An Economic History of Indian Treaties in the Great Lakes Region.” American Indian Journal 4 (February): 2–20. Keller, Robert H. 1989. “America’s Native Sweet: Chippewa Treaties and the Right to Harvest Maple Sugar.” American Indian Quarterly 13 (Spring): 117–135. Kellogg, Louise Phelps. 1931. “The Menominee Treaty at the Cedars, 1836.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 26: 127–135. Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian Treaty Myth.” Southern California Quarterly 55 (Fall): 225–238. Kessell, John L. 1981. “General Sherman and the Navajo Treaty of 1868: A Basic and Expedient Misunderstanding.” Western Historical Quarterly 12 (July): 251–272.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Kickingbird, Kirke, Lynn Kickingbird, Alexander Tallchief Skibine, and Charles Chibitty. 1980. Indian Treaties. Washington, DC: Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Kickingbird, Lynn, and Curtis Berkey. 1975. “American Indian Treaties—Their Importance Today.” American Indian Journal 1 (October): 3–7. Kinnaird, Lucia Burk. 1932. “The Rock Landing Conference of 1789.” North Carolina Historical Review 9 (October): 349–365. Kvasnicka, Robert M. 1988. “United States Indian Treaties and Agreements.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian–White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 195–201. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Lambert, Paul F. 1973. “The Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the West 12 (July): 471–489. Lanchart, David. 1985. “Regaining Dinetah: The Navajo and the Indian Peace Commission at Fort Sumner.” In Working in the Range: Essays on the History of Western Land Management and the Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 25–38. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.” Environmental Law 10: 413–456. Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making in Western Washington.” American Indian Journal 3 (April): 2–11. Larson, Gustive O. 1974. “Uintah Dream: The Ute Treaty—Spanish Fork, 1865.” Brigham Young University Studies 14 (Spring): 361–381. Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31 (Fall): 859–886. Lehman, J. David. 1990. “The End of the Iroquois Mystique: The Oneida Land Cession Treaties of the 1790s.” William and Mary Quarterly, 47(4): 523–547. Leonard, Stephen J. 1990. “John Nicolay in Colorado: A Summer Sojourn and the 1863 Ute Treaty.” Essays and Monographs in Colorado History 11, 25–54. Lindquist, G. E. E. 1948–1949. “Indian Treaty Making.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 26 (Winter): 416–448. Litton, Gaston L., ed. 1939. “The Negotiations Leading to the Chickasaw-Choctaw Agreement, January 17, 1837.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 17 (December): 417–427.

www.abc-clio.com

B-5

Madill, Dennis. 1981. British Columbia Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Mahan, Bruce E. 1925. “The Great Council of 1825.” Palimpsest 6 (September): 305–318. Mahan, Bruce E. 1929. “Making the Treaty of 1842.” Palimpsest 10 (May): 174–180. Mahon, John K. 1962. “The Treaty of Moultrie Creek, 1823.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40 (April): 350–372. Mahon, John K. 1962. “Two Seminole Treaties: Payne’s Landing, 1882, and Ft. Gibson, 1833.” Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (July): 1–21. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their Breach. Saskatoon: Purich. Manley, Henry S. 1838. “Buying Buffalo from the Indians.” New York History 28 (July 1947): 313–329, Buffalo Creek Treaty. Manley, Henry S. 1932. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1784. Rome, NY: Rome Sentinel. Martin, John Henry. 1975. List of Documents Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified Indian Treaties, 1801–1869. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint. McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McCullar, Marion Ray. 1973. “The ChoctawChickasaw Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the West 12 (July): 462–470. McKenney, Thomas L. 1827. Sketches of a Tour to the Lakes, of the Character and Customs of the Chippeway Indians, and of Incidents Connected with the Treaty of Fond du Lac. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr. McNeil, Kinneth. 1964–65. “Confederate Treaties with the Tribes of Indian Territory.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 42 (Winter): 408–420. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971. Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Charte Canadienne des droits et Libertés, 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Errol Mendes, 1171–1257. Markham, ON: LexisNexis Butterworths. Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-6

Selected Bibliography

Parker, Arthur C. 1924. “The Pickering Treaty.” Rochester Historical Society Publication Fund Series 3: 79–91. Partoll, Albert J., ed. 1937. “The Blackfoot Indian Peace Council.” Frontier and Midland: A Magazine of the West 17 (Spring): 199–207. Partoll, Albert J. 1938. “The Flathead Indian Treaty Council of 1855.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 29 (July): 283–314. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. Phillips, Charles, and Alan Axelrod. 2000. Encyclopedia of Historical Treaties and Alliances. New York: Facts on File. Phillips, Edward Hake. 1966. “Timothy Pickering at His Best: Indian Commissioner, 1790–1794.” Essex Institute Historical Collections 102 (July): 185–192. Pittman, Philip M., and George M. Covington. 1992. Don’t Blame the Treaties: Native American Rights and the Michigan Indian Treaties. West Bloomfield, MI: Altwerger and Mandel. Powless, Irving, and G. Peter Jemison. 2000. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and Cases. Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Repr., Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1999. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1975. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Quaife, Milo M., ed. 1918. “The Chicago Treaty of 1833.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 1 (March): 287–303. Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: The Historical Development of a Legal Concept,” American Journal of Legal History 34 (October): 331–364. Rakove, Jack N. 1984. “Solving a Constitutional Puzzle: The Treatymaking Clause as a Case

www.abc-clio.com

Study.” Perspectives in American History, s.n., 1: 233–281. Roberts, Gary L. 1975. “The Chief of State and the Chief.” American Heritage 26 (October): 28–33, 86–89. Creek Treaty of New York, 1790. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Rutland, Robert A. 1949–1950. “Political Background of the Cherokee Treaty of New Echota.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 27 (Winter): 389–406. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 79(1). Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Schwartzman, Grace M., and Susan K. Barnard. 1991. “A Trail of Broken Promises: Georgians and the Muscogee/Creek Treaties, 1796–1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 75 (Winter): 697–718. Silliman, Sue I. 1922. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of 1821.” Michigan History Magazine 6(1): 194–197. Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196. Smith, Dwight L. 1954. “Wayne and the Treaty of Greene Ville.” Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 63 (January): 1–7. Smith, Dwight L. 1978. “The Land Cession Theory: A Valid Instrument of Transfer of Indian Title.” In This Land Is Ours: The Acquisition of the Public Domain, 87–102. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Stanley, Henry M. 1967. “A British Journalist Reports the Medicine Lodge Peace Council of 1867.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 33 (Autumn): 249–320. Stern, Theodore. 1956. “The Klamath Indians and the Treaty of 1864.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 57 (September): 229–273.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657. Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.” In History of Indian White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 202–210. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Taylor, Alfred A. 1924. “Medicine Lodge Peace Council.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 2 (June): 98–117. Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): 793–812. Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. 1986. Indians, Superintendents, and Councils: Northwestern Indian Policy, 1850–1855. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd. 1938. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian War: An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 That Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press/Septentrion. Vaughan, Alden T. 1979. Early American Indian Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607– 1789. Washington, DC: University Publications of America. Vipperman, Carl J. 1989. “The Bungled Treaty of New Echota: The Failure of Cherokee Removal, 1836–38.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73 (Fall): 540–558. Watts, Charles W. 1959. “Colbert’s Reserve and the Chickasaw Treaty of 1818.” Alabama Review 12 (October): 272–280. Watts, Tim J. 1991. American Indian Treaty Rights: A Bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies.

www.abc-clio.com

B-7

Wells, Samuel J. 1983–1984. “Rum, Skins, and Powder: A Choctaw Interpreter and the Treaty of Mount Dexter.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 61 (Winter): 422–428. Wells, Samuel J. 1986. “International Causes of the Treaty of Mount Dexter, 1805.” Journal of Mississippi History 48 (August): 177–185. Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights: Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20(1): 87–129. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review (May–June): 375– 414. Wilkinson, Charles F. 2000. Messages from Frank’s Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?” California Law Review 63 (May): 601–661. Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle: Outdoor Empire. Wright, J. Leitch, Jr. 1967. “Creek-American Treaty of 1790: Alexander McGillivray and the Diplomacy of the Old Southwest.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 51 (December): 379–400. Wrone, David R. 1986–1987. “Indian Treaties and the Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 70 (Winter): 83–106. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of Indian Rights to Their Homelands.” In Working the Range: Essays on the History of Western Land Management and the Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Index Note: Page locators in boldface type indicate the location of a main encyclopedia entry. A-ka-ke (the Crow), 328 A-Kei-Quodle (Lone Wolf), 677 A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi (Lone Chief), 349, 356 Aampahaa (Speaker), 294 Aanti (Short Stay), 897 ABCFM. See American Board for Commissioners of Foreign Missions Abenaki, 75, 211, 235, 278, 638 Abert, John J., 333 Aboriginal homelands, 95. See also Reservations Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry (ALOHA), 207 Aboriginal peoples, in Canada, 209, 217–218 Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, and the Constitution, 663 Aboriginal rights, 95, 143, 396, 401, 406–407, 637–638, 728–729, 920 Aboriginal title, 215, 375, 380, 382, 386, 389, 395, 398, 406–407, 729–730, 919–920 Abourezk, James, 741, 742 Abrogation, 44–46 Absenteeism, and education, 186–187 Acculturation, 28 ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union Act for the Government and Protection of the Indians, 660 Act of Capitulation, 637, 638 Act of May 25, 1824, 253 Act 304, 206 Acts, 49. See also individual acts Adair, George W., 333 Adair, John, 850 Adair, William P., 737–738 Adams, David, 301 Adams, Hank, 152, 700, 707, 738–739, 751 Adams, John, 69, 757 Adams, John Quincy, 79, 85, 413, 655, 865, 935

Adams, Moses N., 376 Adams, Vivian, 148 Adams-Onís Treaty, 656 Addenda treaties, 102–103. See also Treaties Addoetta (Big Tree), 851 Administration, tribal of federation programs, 116–117 Adoetti (Big Tree), 851 Adoption. See Child welfare “Affirmation of the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere,” 713 AFN. See Alaska Federation of Natives Africa, 49 African Americans, 29–30, 35, 88, 170, 181 AFSC. See American Friends Service Committee Age of exploration, 49 Agencies, 27. See also individual agencies Agrarian-based economy, 76 Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, 1866, 363–364 Agreement-in-principle (AIP), 949 Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 Agreement with the Cherokee, March 14, 1834, 320 Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Creek, June 29, 1825, 303 Agreement with the Crows, May 14, 1880, 385 Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes, September 8, 1853, 338 Agreement with the Seneca, September 15, 1797, 289

Agreement with the Seneca, September 3, 1823, 302 Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, October 17, 1822, to January 3, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Agreements, 49. See also individual agreements; Treaties Agriculture, 17, 25, 31, 33, 134 in Hawaii, 202, 203, 206 Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, 320 Ah-quash-she, 323 Ahweyneyonh (Drooping Flower, Blue Flower), 884 AIAD. See American Indians Against Desecration AIM. See American Indian Movement Aionai (I-on-i) Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 AIP. See Agreement-in-principle Air quality, 140 AIRFA. See American Indian Religious Freedom Act Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 206 Akaitcho, 400 Akaka, Daniel, 207 Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names), 785 Akwesasne, 638, 720, 721 Al-le-ga-wa-ho, 414 Alabama, 21, 85–86 Alaska, 44, 170, 195–199, 685–686 education in, 195 fishing rights in, 195–196 jurisdiction in, 172 and land compensation, 195, 196–198 mineral development in, 198 native land claims in, 196–199 natural resources in, 195–196

I-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

I-2

Index

Alaska (cont.) oil in, 195, 196, 197 poverty in, 199 regional and village corporations in, 198–199 and relocation, 195 reservations in, 195–196, 198 and Russia, 195 self-determination in, 198 sovereignty in, 199 statehood in, 195. See also Alaska Statehood Act termination in, 196, 198 and trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 Alaska Coalition, 197 Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 199 Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), 195, 196, 197–198, 698–699 Alaska Highway, 240 Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, 400 Alaska Native Allotment Act, 195 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 139, 174, 195, 198–199, 698–699 Alaska Native Reorganization Act, 681 Alaska Natives, 195–199, 198, 685–686 and jurisdiction, 174 Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 195–196 Alaska Purchase Treaty, 195 Alaska Railroad, 195 Alaska Statehood Act, 196, 197 Alatala Hooma, 291 Albany Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1755, 640–641 Treaty of Albany with Iroquois Confederacy and British Crown, September 24, 1664, 211 Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 Albertson, Isaac, 319 Alcatraz, occupation of, 689–691, 712. See also Oakes, Richard Alcohol, 35, 273 Aleiya (Lawyer), 345, 374 Aleut, 195, 196 Alexander, John, 885 Alexander (son of Massasoit), 859–860

www.abc-clio.com

Alexander VI, 49, 954 Alexis, Chief, 148 Alford, Henry, 851 Algonkian (Algonquian), 75, 163, 235, 243, 412 Alibamon, 52, 53 Ali’i (nobility), 228 Allegheny Reservoir, 44 Allen, Elisha P., 231 table 4 Allen, Frank J., 314, 315 Alliances, 40, 52 Allis, Samuel, 349 Allotments, 5–6, 7–8, 24–25, 32, 34, 98, 109–110, 111, 133, 138, 167, 920–921. See also General Allotment Act; Indian Reorganization Act; Land ownership ALOHA. See Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry Alvord, H. J., 355 Ambrister, Robert, 808 Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), 183, 655 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 152 American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), 152, 717 American Fur Trade Company, 422 American Indian Defense Association, 189 American Indian Mission Association, 418 American Indian Movement (AIM), 700, 701, 712–713, 739–741 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 703–706 See also Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou; Bellecourt, Clyde; Banks, Dennis; Means, Russell American Indian Policy Review Commission, 36, 115, 741–742 American Indian Policy Review Commission Act, 173–174 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 118, 140, 174–175, 947 American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 709–710

ABC-CLIO

American Indian Treaty Rights Movement, 140 American Indian Tribal Governments, 190 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, 117 American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD), 176 American Indian Policy Review Commission, 710 American Revolution. See Revolutionary War (U.S.) Americanization, 179 and education, 185 Amherst, Jeffrey, 902 Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Treaty of, 55 Amoah, 430 Ana-da-ca. See Anadarko Anadarko (Ana-da-ca), 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Ancient remains, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites ANCSA. See Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Anderson, William, 292, 309 Andrews, T. P., 333 Ani’-Yun’ wiya, 429 Anishinaabe (Anishinabe), 155, 305 Anishnabeg (Anishnaabeg), 216, 335, 435, 645, 727 Anne, Queen, 822 Annette Island Reserve, 198 Annexation, of Hawaii, 200, 202–203, 205–207 Annuities, 24, 25, 41, 270, 921–922. See also Land compensation; Trade and Intercourse Act Anthony, Scott, 772, 773 Anthony, Susan B., 772 Antiquities, 124–126, 725. See also Sacred sites Antiquities Act, 947 Antoine v. Washington, 45 Apache, 25, 52, 53, 57, 61, 100, 104, 110, 267–269, 271, 272, 273, 411, 412, 677–678 and education, 182, 188–189 and Fort Sumner, 425–426 and jurisdiction, 168 and reconstruction treaty, 106, 107

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 339, 500–502 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Apalachicola (Appalachicola) and confederate treaty, 103 Treaty with the Appalachicola, October 11, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Apology Resolution Appropriations acts, 27 Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou, 742–744. See also American Indian Movement Aquash, Nogeeshik, 743 Ar-ber-too-quet, 329 Arapaho, 24, 30, 101, 103, 106, 251, 252, 254, 256, 270, 272, 733 and jurisdiction, 175 and reconstruction treaty, 107 and reorganization, 171 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Arapaho Reservation, 32 Arbuckle, Matthew, 320, 330, 419 Arbuthnot, Alexander, 808

www.abc-clio.com

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 125 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 400 Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA), 197 Areas indigena, 95. See also Reservations Arikara, 24, 101, 106, 253, 254 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July 18, 1825, 304 Arizona, 62, 88 Arizona Enabling Act, 703 Arkansas, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Arkansas River, 21 Arkansas Territory, 21 Armstrong, Benjamin, 760 Armstrong, John, 424 Armstrong, Joseph, 309 Armstrong, Silas, 343 Armstrong, William, 330, 332, 333 Armstrong Academy, 418 Army Corps of Engineers, 154 Arn, W. F. M., 799 Aronne (Cherokee Boy), 298 Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act, 718 Arootsook Micmac, 176 Arthur, Duncan, 297 Articles of Agreement of 1826, 231 table 4, 232 Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760, 637–638 Articles of Confederation, 14, 53, 55, 260, 283–284, 285 Article IX, 27 and jurisdiction, 163 treaties under, 70–73 Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), 349, 356 Asia, 203 ASNA. See Arctic Slope Native Association Aspinall, Wayne, 197 Assapausa, 862 Assimilation, 13, 31–33, 35–36, 61, 96, 134, 138, 168, 170, 171, 922–924 coercive, 110, 111 and education, 179–180, 186, 187, 189, 190 See also General Allotment Act Assimilative Crimes Act, 173 Assiniboine (Assinaboine), 24, 101, 106, 236, 254, 383, 678–679

ABC-CLIO

I-3

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Nakota Associated funerary objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Association of Aroostook Indians, 718 Atcheson, Nathaniel, 56 Athabascan (Athapascan), 195, 196, 236 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 See also Dene Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis Clark), Chief, 289 Atkins, J. D. C., 183 Atkinson, Henry, 253, 303, 304, 306, 439, 754 Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley, 113 Atoka Agreement, 8, 674–675, 676, 677 Attacked Toward Home (Axkyahpsay-pi), 785 Atwater, Caleb, 309 Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish), 328 Augur, Christopher Colon, 366, 367, 369, 370, 373–374 Auicara (Pah-sal-sa), 304 Aupaumut, Hendrick, 75, 744–745 Australia, 203 Aweecony, 286 Awl Breaker (Taa’-wonyas), 814 Awuohee, 430 the Axe (La-ma-noan), 294 Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked Toward Home), 785 Ayowai, 252 Azores, 49 Babbitt, Bruce, 725, 789 Bad Heart Bull, Wesley, 704, 747 Badoni v. Higginson, 174 Bagot, Sir Charles, 745 Bagot Commission (Canada), 745–746

1-800-368-6868

I-4

Index

Bailey, David, 851 Baker Lake, 715–716 Balcombe, A. D., 356 Bald eagle, 45 Baldwin, Henry, 656–657 Balme, Augustin de la, 849 Banai, Edward Benton, 750, 751. See also American Indian Movement Banks, Dennis, 700, 704–706, 712, 739, 743, 746–747, 750, 751, 857–858. See also American Indian Movement Banning, Evelyn I., 829 Bannock, 106, 227–228 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374, 556–559 Bannock Reservation, 372, 374 BAR. See Branch of Acknowledgment and Research Barbeyric, Jean, 49 Barbon, 748 Barboncito (Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod), 370, 371, 412, 748–749 Barbour, George, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Barbour, John, 308 Bark, 297 Barnard, Lewis, 338 Barnett, John, 323 Barnhart, Andrew, 151–152 Barron, Joseph, 444 Bart, Augustin. See Shinguakouce Bartlett, Mary, 791 Bascom, George, 777 Bassett, Joel B., 365 Batchewana, 436 Bates, Frederick, 438–439, 846 Battelle des Illinois, 421 Battles. See under individual battles Bawating, 435 Bawldridge, John, 297 Bay Mills Indian Community, 436 Bay Mills Indian Reservation, 710 Bayonet Constitution, 203–204, 232 Beale, Edward F., 661 Bear-skin, 312 Bearskin, Leoford, 749–750 Beaver Wars, 278 Becancour, 75 Belantse-Etoa Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304

www.abc-clio.com

Bell, John A., 333 Bellecourt, Clyde, 739, 746, 750–752. See also American Indian Movement Bellecourt, Vernon, 752 Belloni, Robert, 153, 696, 697, 900 Benson, Thomas Hart, 253 Bent, Charles, 770 Bent, William, 269, 358, 769–770 Benton, Thomas Hart, 17–18 Bernard, Joshua, 720 Bernard case, 720–721 Bernstein, Betty, 840 Beshkike (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Between the Logs (Taruntne), 298 Beuge, John, 297 BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs BIC. See Board of Indian Commissioners Bidwell, John, 660 Big Bow (Zebaedal), 897 Big Foot, Chief, 705 Big-Mouth, 351, 901 Big River (Chekommia), 298 Big Snake, 904 Big Tree, Treaty of, 76 Big Tree (Addoetta, Adoetti), 851, 892–893, 897 Bighorse, Gus, 662 Bilateral agreements, 39 Bill C-31, 668 Bird Bow, 838 Black, Edward, 365 Black, Hugo, 44, 63, 686, 692 Black Buffalo Woman, 784 Black Cloud (Manpinsaba), 294 Black Coat, 315 Black Eagle. See Kicking Bird Black Elk, Wallace, 743 Black Fox, 292 Black Hawk (Makataimeshekiakiak), 255, 752–754, 776, 798, 807, 810, 811 and Clark, William, 776 and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 810, 811 Black Hawk War, 84, 90, 317, 413 Black Hills, 39, 40, 256–257 gold in, 139–140, 719 Black Jim, 768 Black Kettle, 352, 367, 733, 754–755 and Chivington, 772, 773 Black Mesa, 140 Black River Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355

ABC-CLIO

Black Shawl, 784 Black War Club (Champisaba), 294 Blackbird, Andrew, 428 Blackfeet, 101, 230 table 2, 236, 251, 252 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Blackfeet, October 17, 1855, 347–348 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–359, 358–360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Blackhawk, John, 161 Blackmun, Harry, 708, 719, 723 Blackstone, John, 945 Blanchard’s Fork Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 BLM. See Bureau of Land Management Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy, 755–756 Blood, 101, 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Blood Law, 322 Blount, James H., 204 Blount, William, 287, 756–758. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs Blount Report, 205 Blue Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884 Blue Jacket, 76, 849, 850, 902 Blunt, James G., 419 Blunt, John, 313 Board of Indian Commissioners (BIC), 30 Boarding schools, 185–186. See also Schools Bodin, Jean, 49 Bogy, Lewis V., 364, 365 Boilvin, Nicholas, 776 Bois Fort (Bois Forte), 157 Treaty of, 228

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Boldt, George, 153–154, 696, 697, 706, 707, 739 Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 153–154, 155, 156, 158, 428, 696, 706–707 Boldt II, 154 Bonja, George, 333 Bonneville Dam, 154–155 Bonneville Power Administration, 155 Bonnin, Gertrude, 763 Boone, Albert G., 351 Bosque Redondo Reservation, 425 Boston Charley, 768 Boston University, 189 Boudinot, Elias (Buck Oowatie; Gallegina Watie), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 429–430, 667, 758, 909 Boudinot, Elias (statesman, poet), 758 Bouquet, Henry, 424 Bourgeois, Marie Therese, 774 Bowdoin, Sarah, 791 Bowles, William Augustus, 856 Boyd, Robert, 415 Boyer, LaNada, 691 Bozeman Trail, 254, 256 Braddock, Edward, 782 Bradford, William, 854 Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR), 928 Branching Horn (Haibohaa), 294 Brando, Marlon, 152, 739 Brandt, Joseph, 289 Brant, Joseph, 55, 72–73, 76, 641, 759–760, 885, 886 Brant, Mary, 836 the Brave (Tearekatacaush), 298 Bread, Daniel, 329 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, et al., 931 Breynat, Bishop, 392 Bright Eyes (Susette LaFlesche Tibbles), 905–906 British Columbia, 215, 216 British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, April 8, 1765, 279–280 British North America Act, 236, 663, 664. See also Constitution Act (Canada) British Rolls of Parliament, 49 Broadhead, Daniel, 744 Bronson, Isaac, 290

www.abc-clio.com

Brookings Institute, 33, 923 Brooks, Jehiel, 320 Brooks, William, 853 Broom, 291 Brothertown, 305, 315 Brown, George, 201 Brown, James, 327 Brown, Jerry, 747 Brown, John, 333 Brown, John D., 312 Brown, John F., 362 Brown, Orlando, 842 Brown, Ray A., 679–680 Browning, Orville H., 369 Brule, 106 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Bruneau River Treaty, 228 Bryan, John A., 323 Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 62 Buchanan, James, 201, 772 Buck, John Kill, 424 Buck Act, 703 Buckongahclas, 442 Buffalo, Chief (Kechewaishke, Beshkike, Le Boeuf), 433, 760–761 Buffalo Bill, 802, 803, 899 Buffalo Creek, Treaty of, 23 Buffalo Head (Ta-ton-ca-pa), 303 Buffalo herds, 24, 107, 139, 270 Buffalo (Kechewaishke), 433 Bull Bear, 367, 818 Bulls of Donation, 924 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 29, 30, 34, 35, 43, 54, 62, 111, 115, 116, 761–762 and Alaska, 196 and American Indian SelfDetermination and Education Act, 709 corruption in, 167 and domestic dependent nation, 926 and education, 182, 183, 184–187, 189–190 and Federal Acknowledgment Process, 928 and federally recognized tribes, 175, 176–177, 929 and fishing rights, 154 and Indian Reorganization Act, 680–681 and jurisdiction, 173 and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 694 and Meriam Report, 679 and Morton v. Mancari, 708

ABC-CLIO

I-5

and nonrecognized tribes, 941, 942 public apology, 2000, 731, 733 and Public Law 280, 684 and reservations, 95–96 and reserved rights, 141, 150 and state-recognized tribes, 950 takeover of, 712 and Trail of Broken Treaties, 700 and trust land, 956 and trust responsibility, 958 and water rights, 145 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 704, 705 See also Blount, William; Burke, Charles H.; Calhoun, John C.; Collier, John; McKenney, Thomas L.; Office of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 196, 197, 958 Bureau of Reclamation, 144–145, 958 Burgess, Mercy, 787 Burial objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Burke, Charles H., 763–764. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs Burke, Edmund, 333 Burke Act, 33, 932 Burnett, William, 437 Burr, Aaron, 846 Bursum, Holm, 764 Bursum Bill, 780 Bush, George W., 734 Business community, in Hawaii, 203–204 Butler, Dino, 743 Butler, Rev. Elizur, 57, 88, 655 Butler, P. M., 332 Butler, Richard, 72, 285, 286 Butler, Thomas, 289 Butterworth case, 735 Buy Indian Act, 33 Byrd, William, 277 Ca-La Na-Po Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 CAA. See Community Action Agency Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. California, 121, 124, 723 Cabezón, Pisago, 777 Caddo, 104, 268 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835, 320 Cadillac, Antoine, 878

1-800-368-6868

I-6

Index

Caghnawaga, Chief, 289 Cahokia Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Cahwai Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Calapooia, 342 Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia (Canada), 215, 398, 406, 701–702, 715, 728, 920, 940 Caldwell, Billy, 319, 413, 764–765, 807 Caldwell, Joe, 430 Calhoun, Henry, 22 Calhoun, James S., 268, 272, 334 Calhoun, John C., 262–263, 299, 302, 439 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 761 and Parker, Ely S., 870 California, 24, 136, 199–200, 201 gold discovery in, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, 254, 659, 660 jurisdiction in, 172 treaties in, 100, 228, 231 table 3 California v. Cabazon, 175 Calumet ceremony, 39 Camp Stevens treaty history of, 409–410 Walla Walla Council, 409 See also Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854 Campbell, 297 Campbell, A. J., 350 Campbell, Ben Nighthorse, 733 Campbell, Duncan G., 302 Campbell, John, 753 Campbell, Robert, 422 Canada, 41, 51, 55, 56, 80, 97, 209–220 aboriginal peoples in, 209, 217–218 and British treaties, 235, 237–238 and Canadian Independence, 212–214 and colonial America, 209 contemporary agreements in, 236, 240–241 and education, 179 and Europe, 209 fishing rights in, 218 and France, 209 and French treaties, 235, 236–237

www.abc-clio.com

and Great Britain, 209, 210, 211, 214 and Hudson’s Bay Company treaties, 235, 238–239 land claims agreements in, 215–217 modern legal status of treaties in, 218, 220 and modern treaties, 215–217 and numbered treaties, 236, 239–240 and peace and friendship treaties, 210–212 Pre-Confederation Treaties, 641–642 and Revolutionary War (U.S.), 212–214 sovereignty in, 177 treaties from 1867-1930, 214–215 treaty litigation in, 218–220 treaty making in, 210–217 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289 and Upper Canada treaties of land surrender, 235–236, 239 Canada Department of Indian Affairs, 404, 940 Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, 216, 218 Specific Claims Branch, 949 Canada Department of Justice, 216 Canada Indian Specific Claims Commission, 216 Canada Pension Plan, 217 Canadian Bill of Rights, 668, 687–688 Canadian Centre for the Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, 949 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 688 Canadian Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, 400 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty document, 559–564 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty document, 564–566 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 239, 377 treaty document, 566–572

ABC-CLIO

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 239, 378–380 treaty document, 573–581 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 239, 380–381 treaty document, 581–595 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 240, 381–382 treaty document, 595–598 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 240, 382–385 treaty document, 598–603 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 240, 385–387 treaty document, 603–607 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 240, 388–389 treaty document, 607–612 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 240, 390–391 treaty document, 612–621 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27 to August 30, 1921, 240, 391–393 treaty document, 622–627 Canadian Parliament, 215 Canagaraduncka, Brant, 759 Canandaigua, Treaty of, 19, 75, 287, 679. See also Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794 Canassatego, 765–766, 823 Canby, Edward Richard Sprigg, 412, 661, 768, 769, 770 Canons of treaty construction, 11, 22, 41–43, 62–63, 135, 149 Cansa. See Kansa Canyon de Chelly treaty history of, 410–412 See also Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868 Cape Sable bands, 237 Cape Verde Islands, 49 Capitulation of Montreal, 237, 637–638 Capote, 272 Captain Dutch, 333 Captain Jack (Kintpuash), 767–768 Captain Jack’s Stronghold, 227

1-800-368-6868

Index Captain Pollard, 885 Caravel, 49 Carey Mission, Treaty of, 437 Caribou Creek, Treaty of, 196 Carimine, 305 Carleton, James H., 370, 412, 425, 661, 662, 748, 770, 853, 854 Carlisle Indian School, 59, 179, 185, 186, 188, 189. See also Pratt, Richard Henry; Schools Carpenter v. Shaw, 42, 62 Carroll, William, 321 Carson, Christopher Houston “Kit,” 104, 267, 269, 270, 272, 358, 368, 412, 425, 661, 662, 748, 769–770, 853 and Ouray, 868 Carson, Lindsey, 769 Carson, Rebecca Robinson, 769 Carter, Colbert, 362 Carter, Henry R., 327 Carter, Jimmy, 716 Carter administration, 247, 818 Cartier, Jacques, 938 Cartwright, George, 211 Cass, Lewis, 85, 87, 90, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 307, 309, 412–413, 427, 658, 771–772, 776, 867 and Michilimackinac, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 430 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 and Schoolcraft, Henry, 894 Casserly, Eugene, 59 Castake Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs, 35 Catawba, 259 Catholic Church, 49, 209 Cattaraugus Reservation, 76 Cattle grazing, 31–32, 33 Caughnawaga, 75 Caveat case. See Paulette case Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, 330 Cayetano, Ben, 732 Cayuga, 248, 278. See also Six Nations Cayuse, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 415 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Cayuse War, 410 Celilo Falls, 151

www.abc-clio.com

Celilo Fish Committee (CFC), 151 CENA. See Coalition of Eastern Native Americans Central America, 51 Cera, Mitchell P. (Wash-kom-moni), 349 CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Ceremonies, 6, 13, 14, 19, 39, 668 and subsistence resources, 147–148 Cerre, Mitchell P. (Wash-com-moni), 349, 356 CERT. See Council of Energy Resource Tribes Cession, treaties of, by state, 81 table 1, 81 table 2 Cetanwakanmani, 847, 848 CFC. See Celilo Fish Committee Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that Has No Name), 304 Cha-tau-’hne (Yellow Hawk), 359 Chahta Tamaha, 418 Chambers, John, 332 Chambly, 305 Champisaba (Black War Club), 294 Champlain, Samuel de, 236 Chapin, Israel, 287, 288 Chapitone, 334 Charles I, 767 Charles II, 76, 276, 873 Charlton, Richard, 201 Chasta. See Shasta Chatters, Jim, 725 Chattoogee, 430 Chayenne. See Cheyenne Che-chu-chee, 363 Che-kus-kuk, 364 Che-qua-sau-quah, 322 Che-quaw-ka-ko, 325 Checkered (May-zin), 324 Chees-quat-a-law-ny (John Rollin Ridge), 886–887 Chehalis, 226–227 Chekommia (Big River), 298 Chekopeheke Emanthau, 292 Chemakum, 99 Chemehuevi, 273 Chenughiata, Chief, 282 Cherokee, 7, 9, 15–18, 20–23, 30, 32, 43, 52–53, 56–57, 70–73, 88, 104, 105, 107, 211, 213, 246, 248, 251, 260–262, 268, 439, 655–656 Agreement with the Cherokee, March 14, 1834, 320

ABC-CLIO

I-7

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, 1866, 30 and education, 182, 183 and Fort Gibson, 419 and jurisdiction, 165–166, 174 and New Echota, 429–430 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 88–89, 263–264, 265 and Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 657–658 Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785, 285–286, 451–453 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, 287 Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794, 287 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2, 1798, 289 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 24, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 25, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, January 7, 1806, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Cherokee, September 14, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 8, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, February 27, 1819, 299 Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835, 320–322, 483–491 Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, 363, 542–550 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27, 1868, 368–369 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 See also Five Civilized Tribes Cherokee Boy (Aronne), 298

1-800-368-6868

I-8

Index

Cherokee Commission. See Jerome Commission Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 22, 40, 56–57, 61, 112, 165–166, 213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 655, 671, 926, 953–954 and government-to-government relationship, 930, 931 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, 429 Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, 1866, 30 Cherokee Tobacco case, 43, 44, 667 Cherokee War of 1776, 260 Cheucunsene, 296 Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation, 32, 107 Cheyenne (Chayenne), 24, 30, 101, 103, 104, 106, 252, 253, 254, 256, 269, 270, 271, 272, 733 and education, 183 and Fort Laramie, 423 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July 6, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Cheyenne Reservation, 32 Chicago treaty document, 480–483 treaty history of, 412–413 Treaty of, 317 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833;

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Chickasaw, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, 32, 52–53, 71–72, 73, 211, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 419, 674–675 and addenda treaty, 102 and confederate treaty, 103 and Doaksville, 417–418 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and reconstruction treaty, 105 and removal, 87, 264 Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 24, 1801, 289–290 Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Chickasaw, September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 19, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Chickasaw, August 31, 1830, 310, 464–468 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 22, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362, 527–538 See also Five Civilized Tribes Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 45 Chickmaugee, 430 Chief Man (Rarnleshare), 298 Chien Noir (Macatiwaaluna), 292 Child custody. See Child welfare Child welfare, 8, 36, 114, 118–121

ABC-CLIO

China, 49, 202 Chinook, 97, 226, 227, 229 table 1, 414–415, 415 Chipewyan, 236 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Chippewa, 23, 29, 41, 43, 45, 51, 55, 71, 72, 73, 91–92, 100, 104, 436, 710–711, 721–722, 730–731 and fishing rights, 155–158 and gathering rights, 158–159 and hunting rights, 42 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, August 2, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 24, 1819, 300 Treaty with the Chippewa, June 16, 1820, 300

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Chippewa, January 14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 23, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 7, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842, 331 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 30, 1854, 340–341, 502–507 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394, 627–635 Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), 711 Chivington, John Milton, 733, 754–755, 772–774. See also Sand Creek Massacre Chivington’s Colorado Volunteers, 269 Cho-bah-áh-bish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Cho-cote-harjo, 362 Choctaw, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, 32, 42, 52, 53, 71–72, 211, 248, 259, 260, 261, 262–263, 419, 674–675 and addenda treaty, 102 and confederate treaty, 103 and Dancing Rabbit Creek, 416 and Doak’s Stand, 416–417 and Doaksville, 417–418 and education, 182 and land use, 135 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and reconstruction treaty, 105 and removal, 86–87, 264 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, December 17, 1801, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 17, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, 1803, 291 Treaty with the Choctaw, November 16, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 24, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825, 302 Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830, 310–311, 468–476

ABC-CLIO

I-9

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362, 527–538 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 See also Five Civilized Tribes Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 62 Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 42 Choctaw Telegraph, 418 Chouteau, Auguste, 269, 294–295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 327, 438, 439, 774–775, 797 Chouteau, Pierre, 438–439, 774, 776, 847 Chouteau, Rene Auguste, 774 Christianity, 22, 59, 96, 179, 180–182, 251, 270 and education, 185, 187, 188 Chu-Nuts Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, WoWoz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Chup-co, John (Long John), 362 Churchill, Winston, 796 Citizenship, 8, 33, 169–170 Citizenship Act, 169–170 Civil rights, 35, 114 Civil Rights Act of 1866, 671 Civil Service reform, 272 Civilization, 25, 28, 31, 83, 85, 96, 98, 179, 180–182, 251, 273 and education, 187, 189 program, 255 in southeast, 261–262 Civilization Fund, 30 Clackamas, 229 table 1 Clallam, 99 Claremont, Chief, 303 Clark, Alex, 312 Clark, Ann (Rogers), 775 Clark, George Rogers, 70, 72, 286, 343, 443 Clark, John, 775 Clark, Lewis (Atiatoharognwan), 289 Clark, W. P., 801 Clark, William, 21–22, 89, 252, 269, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 310, 314, 315, 415, 775–776, 797, 837, 846

1-800-368-6868

I-10

Index

Clark, William (cont.) and Cass, Lewis, 771, 772 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and Prairie du Chien, 430 and St. Louis, 438–439 See also Lewis, Meriwether; Lewis and Clark Expedition; Louisiana Purchase Clatsop, 97 Clay, Henry, 16, 85, 870 Clayton, John M., 201 Clean Air Act, 117, 118 Clean Water Act, 117–118 Clear Sky (Esh-ton-o-quot), 287, 323 Clearwater, Frank, 705 Clemson, E. B., 293 Clemson, Eli, 438 Cleveland, Grover, 232, 786 and Eskiminzin, 806 and Hawaii, 204–205 and Jackson, Helen Hunt, 830 and Sitting Bull, 899 Clinton, Bill, 232 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 947 Executive Order 13175, 955 and Trust Doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 958 Clinton, George, 75–76 Clinton, James, 641 Clum, John P., 806 Clymer, George, 289 Co-ha-thlock-co (Cockrane), 313 Coal, 140–141. See also Natural resources Coalition of Eastern Native Americans (CENA), 950 Cobell, Elouise, 140, 727 Cobell case, 140, 727 Cobell v. Babbitt, 727 Cobell v. Kempthorne, 727 Cobell v. Norton, 727, 955 Cochise, 776–778, 812 Cockrane (Co-ha-thlock-co), 313 Coe Hadgo, 316, 835 Coercive assimilation, 110, 111. See also Assimilation Coffee, John, 86, 297, 310, 314 Cohen, Felix S., 778. See also Indian Claims Commission; Indian New Deal Colbert, George, 290, 291, 319 Colbert, Holmes, 362 Colbert, Pitman, 327 Colbert, Winchester, 362 Cole, Robert, 302

www.abc-clio.com

Colley, Samuel G., 772 Collier, John, 34, 111, 170–171, 189, 680, 682, 763, 764, 778, 779–780, 783, 799 and assimilation, 923 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 and Indian New Deal, 934 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Indian New Deal; Indian Reorganization Act Colonial America and Canada, 209 and education, 179–180 and jurisdiction, 162, 163, 169–170 treaties in, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137, 259 treaties of alliance in, 11 treaty negotiation in, 51–53, 53–58 Colorado, 57 gold in, 272 Colton, G. A., 365 Columbia Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Columbia Reservation, 385 Columbia River Indians (River People), 150–152, 155, 227, 414–416 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 155 Columbus, Christopher, 49 Colus Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Colville Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Colville Reservation, 148, 227, 385 Com-o-za, 320 Comanche, 10, 30, 52, 57, 61, 100, 104, 110, 267, 268–269, 270, 271, 272, 410, 677–678 and education, 182 and reconstruction treaty, 106–107 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366 See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Commerce, 49 Commerce clause (of the Constitution), 14, 28, 40, 43, 60, 164, 165, 642–643, 655, 666, 671, 691–692, 943, 954–955 Commercial mooring rights, 43 Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. See Dawes Commission Commissioners, 14 Committee of Original Peoples’ Entitlement, 399 Committee on Indian Affairs, 115, 653 Common land tenure, 134–135 Commons, 134–135 Communal land, 134–135 Community Action Agency (CAA), 35 Compacts, 5, 6 Compensation for Black Hills, 139–140 for mining, 140 See also Annuities; Land compensation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 117 Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada), 215, 216, 235, 236, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941 Compulsory education, 187. See also Education Comstick, 312 Conaquieso, Chief, 282 Concentration policy, 29–31 Confederated Bands of Kalapuya, 230 table 2 Confederacy, 29, 30 Confederate treaties, 11, 58, 103–105. See also U.S. Civil War

1-800-368-6868

Index Confederated Peoria Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation, 227 Congressional Joint Resolution No. 55, 230 Connecticut, 41 Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 43 Conner, James, 351 Conner, John, 351 Conner, Roberta, 159 Connolly, John, 663 Connolly, William, 662–663 Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 662–663 Connor, John, 352 Connor, P. Edward, 354 Cononicus (Cananacus, Conanicus), 766–767 Conoy, 70, 282 Conroy, Commissioner, 392, 393 Conservation regulations, 45 Constitution Act of 1867 (Canada), 218, 394, 663–664, 673–674, 941 Constitution Act of 1982 (Canada), 209, 638, 720–721, 726, 728 Constitutional Convention, 260 Continental Congress, 13, 27, 53, 163, 260, 640 compensation under, 72–73 treaties under, 70–73 Convention of 1884, 231 table 4 Conventions, 5 Coody, William S., 333 Cook, Captain, 205 Cook’s Landing, 152 Cooley, D. N., 357, 362, 363 Coolidge, Calvin, 33 Cooper, Douglas H., 342, 780–781 Cooper, James Fenimore, 906 Coosewatee, 430 Cope, Jean-Baptiste, 237 Copper Treaty, 91 CORA. See Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority Corn Planter. See Cornplanter Corn Stalk, 294 Cornelius, Jacob, 329 Cornplanter (Corn Planter; Kaintwakon), 74, 75, 76, 287, 289, 290, 781–783, 814, 815, 885

www.abc-clio.com

Cornwallis, General Edward, 237, 757 Corporate development, 34 Costo, Jeannette Henry, 783 Costo, Rupert, 783–784. See also Indian New Deal Cottier, Allen, 690 Cottier, Belva, 861 Cotton gin, 84 Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 114, 175 Council, 13 Council Grove treaty history of, 413–414 See also Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859 Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), 140, 734 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 62 Court jurisdiction, 36 Court of appeals, Indian, 59 Covenant Chain, 243–244, 245 Covenants, 5, 49 Cow Creek, 226, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Cow-e-to-me-co, 363 Cow-nan-ti-co, 342 Cowlitz, 226 Craig, Thomas, 807 Cram, Rev. Jacob, 885 Crane (Tarhe), 294 Cravat, Rebecca, 843 Crawford, David, 350 Crazy Horse, 898, 901 Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko), 784 Crazy Snake Movement, 817–818 Cree, 101, 219, 238, 240, 278, 382 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 380–381

ABC-CLIO

I-11

Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 388–389 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 395–396 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 See also Swampy Cree Cree-Naskapi Act, 240 Cree v. Flores, 43 Creek, 7, 15–16, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 30, 32, 52–53, 54, 56, 72, 73, 104, 260, 262, 263, 268, 681–682 and addenda treaty, 102–103 Agreement with the Creek, June 29, 1825, 303 and confederate treaty, 103 and land use, 135 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 87, 264 and trade debts, 20 and Trail of Tears, 137 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Creek, August 7, 1790, 287 Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796, 289 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Creek, October 27, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, November 14, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, August 9, 1814, 294 Treaty with the Creek, January 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Creek, January 8, 1821, 301

1-800-368-6868

I-12

Index

Creek (cont.) Treaty with the Creek, February 12, 1825, 302–303 Treaty with the Creek, January 24, 1826, 306 Treaty with the Creek, November 15, 1827, 307–308 Treaty with the Creek, March 24, 1832, 312–313, 476–478 Treaty with the Creek, February 14, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Creek, November 23, 1838, 329–330 Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, 362–363, 538–542 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 See also Five Civilized Tribes Creek War of 1813—1814, 650, 651, 653 Creek War of 1835—1836, 653 Crèvecoeur, Hector St. Jean de, 823 Criminal jurisdiction, 31, 112, 172– 173. See also Jurisdiction Crittenden, Robert, 302 Croghan, Catherine, 760 Croghan, George, 862, 863 Cromwell, John, 307–308 Crook, George, 784, 812, 898, 901, 904, 906 Cross-deputization agreements, 6 Crow, 24, 63–64, 101, 106, 107, 252, 253–254 Agreement with the Crows, May 14, 1880, 385 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August 4, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, 369 the Crow (A-ka-ke), 328 Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670, 901 Crow Dog, Leonard, 743 Crow Foot, 898 Crow Reservation, 113, 375 Crowell, John, 810 Crowfoot, Chief, 384, 785–786 Crown-Indian treaties, 209, 211, 220 Crowther, Bosley, 802 Crume, Marks, 314, 315

www.abc-clio.com

Cu-Zu Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Cultural intolerance, and education, 187–190 Cultural items, 124–126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Cultural patrimony, 124, 125, 126 Cultural resource protection, 118 Culture, and land ownership, 144 Culver, F. B., 351 Culver, Samuel H., 338 Cumberland Presbyterian Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions, 418 Cumming, A., 348 Cummins, Richard W., 332 Cunningham, Jack, 712–713 Curtis, Charles, 676 Curtis, S. R., 358, 359, 360, 364, 772 Curtis Act, 32–33, 673, 675, 676–677 Custer, George Armstrong, 256, 271, 719, 784, 884, 898, 901 and Black Kettle, 755 and Dull Knife, 801 Cuthead Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Dade, Francis, 804 Dakota (Sioux), 28 and Prairie du Chien, 432 and Traverse des Sioux, 441 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Sioux The Dalles, 415 treaty history of, 414–416 Treaty of, 98–99 See also Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855 Dalles Dam, 152 Dalles Falls, 151 Dancing Rabbit Creek treaty history of, 416 Treaty of, 9, 23, 86–87, 310–311, 416, 653, 657, 935 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830 Dart, Anson, 97, 225–226, 229 table 1 Dartmouth College, 180, 181 Das-Pia Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-MaDo, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3

ABC-CLIO

Daveiss, Joseph, 647 Davidson, John, 745 Davis, Edmund, 892 Davis, Jefferson, 809, 901 Davis, John W., 314, 315 Davis, Lewis, 365 Davy (Saa-Hajo), 313 Dawes, Henry L., 32, 671, 672, 786, 787–788 Dawes, Mitchell, 787 Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes), 676–677, 786–787 Dawes General Allotment (Severalty) Act. See General Allotment Act Daws, Gavan, 203 Dawson, S. J., 377 de Callieres, Louis-Hector, 244 de Cavagnial, Marquis Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, 637 De Céloron de Blainville, Pierre Joseph, 862–863 De La Cruz, Joseph Burton, 788–789 de Vattel, Emmerich, 50, 945, 946 de Vitoria, Francisco, 50, 69, 209, 924 Dearborn, Henry, 20, 292, 438, 789–791 Decker, George, 796 Declaration of Independence, 69, 163 DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District, 62, 63 Deer, Ada E., 791–792. See also Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders; Menomie Termination Act Deer, Bob, 792 Deer, Constance Stockton (Wood), 791, 792 Deer, Joseph, 791 Deh Cho Dene, 392, 400 DeLancey, James, 823 Delano, Colombus, 414 Delaware, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 20, 21, 52, 53, 55, 57, 70, 71, 79, 100, 104, 163, 243–244, 245–246, 248, 268, 282 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot, December 14, 1843, 332 and Fort Pitt, 424 and St. Louis, 438 Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778, 283–284, 449–450

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, September 24, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, 1860, 351 Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1866, 363 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 and Vincennes, 442 Delaware Reservation, 351 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 716, 729–730 Deline, 216–217 Delineation of demands, 255 Dellums, Ron, 713 Deloria, Barbara, 795 Deloria, Vine, Jr., 51, 52, 53, 792–795 DeMaillot, Keziah. See Malotte (DeMaillot) Keziah DeMallie, Raymond, 51, 52, 53, 254–255 Dene, 240, 380, 382, 386, 387, 390–391, 392–393, 400, 401 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27 to August 30, 1921, 391–393

www.abc-clio.com

Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 See also Athapaskan; Chipewyan; Sahtu Dene Denmark, 177 Denny, David, 895 Denny, John (Johnny Sundown), 329 Denonville, Marquis de, 288 Densmore, Christopher, 884, 886 Denver, James W., 349 Departments of Indian Affairs, 640 Dependency, 144 DePuy, H., 51 Dermer, Thomas, 854 Deschutes, 148 Deserontyon, John, 76, 239 Deskaheh (Levi General), 796–797 Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS), 172 Detroit, 246 DGF. See U.S. Department of Game and Fish Dias, Bartholomeu, 49 Dickinson, Emily, 829, 830, 906 Diefenbaker, John, 687 Diegunio Treaty with the Diegunio, January 1852, 231 table 3 Dieskau, Baron, 823 Diet, 134 Dillon, G. P., 202 Diné Bikéyah, 410–412 Diné (Navajo), 176, 370–372, 661, 662. See also Navajo Diseases. See European diseases Disturnell, John, 809 Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Do-He-No-Geh-Weh. See Parker, Ely S. Doak, Josiah, 417 Doak, William, 416, 417 Doak’s Stand treaty history of, 416–417 Treaty of, 262–263, 310, 416–417 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820; Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825 Doaksville treaty history of, 417–418 Treaty of, 264, 418

ABC-CLIO

I-13

See also Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837; Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854 Doctrine of discovery, 652, 924–925, 944, 945, 946 Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775-1979 (Deloria and DeMallie), 51 Dodge, Ben, 799 Dodge, Chee, 912 Dodge, Henry Chee (Hastiin Adiits’a’ii; Man Who Interprets), 91, 324, 325, 326-327, 328, 754, 798–799 Dodge, Thomas, 799 Dog Soldiers, 367 Dogrib, 392 Dohasan (Little Bluff), 850, 896 Dole, Sanford, 205 Dole, William, 25, 186, 352, 353, 355, 356 Domestic colonialism, 96 Domestic dependent nation, 22, 40, 57, 64, 81, 88, 112, 165, 166, 184, 213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 925–926, 926 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust relationship, 957 Dominic, Lydia Kamaka’eha. See Liliuokalani, Queen Dominion Lands Act, 664 Dominion of Canada, 236, 663 Donehogä’wa. See Parker, Ely S. Dongan, Thomas, 275–276 Doniphan, Alexander W., 267, 411 Doolittle, James R., 30, 800 Doolittle Commission, 800 Doolittle Committee, 30, 270, 426 Dorian, Paul, 349 Dorset, 937 Doty, James Duane, 354 Dougherty, John, 325, 329 Doughty, John, 420 Douglas, Freeland Edward, 818 Douglas, James, 238–239, 641, 642, 701 Douglas, William O., 694, 695

1-800-368-6868

I-14

Index

Douglass, John T., 327 Douw, Volkert P., 640 Doyle, James, 156 Drachard, Christian, 279 Drew, John, 333 Drew, Richard, 333 Driver, Isaac, 312 Driving Clouds (Nay-gee-zhig), 323–324 Drooping Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884 Drummer’s War, 237 DRUMS. See Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders Drybones, Joseph, 688 Duane, James, 71 Dull Knife (Morning Star), 801–802 Dumont, Alexis, 803 Dumont, Gabriel, 802–803, 939–940 Dundy, Elmer, 829, 904 Dunquod (Half King), 298 Duro v. Reina, 113, 114 Dussault, René, 805 Dutch, 51, 211 and Canada, 235 Duval, William P., 302 Duwamish (Dwamish, Dwámish), 16, 99 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Dwamish. See Duwamish Dysart, George, 697 E-sta-mah-za (Joseph La Flesche), 356 Eades, Susie Rozetta, 818 Eagle Heart (Tenetendi), 897 the Eagle (Hoo-yah), 324 Eagle Protection Act, 158, 722–723 Eagle Striking with Talons. See Kicking Bird Earl, Anthony, 157 Eastern Abenaki, 75 Eastman, Charles, 189 Eaton, John, 86, 88, 310, 311, 319 Economic development, 33, 36, 63, 117 Economic Opportunity Act, 35, 114 Economy agrarian-based, 76 land-based, 134 Ecosystems, 140 Edmunds, Newton, 357, 358, 359, 360, 364, 385 Education, 59, 179–190, 270, 709–710 in Alaska, 195

www.abc-clio.com

compulsory, 187 funding for, 43, 182, 190 programs, 690 success of, 188–189 See also Schools Edwards, Ninian, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299, 774, 797 Eel River, 20, 79 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 EEOA. See Equal Employment Opportunity Act EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 43 Efau Emauthlau, 301 Efiematla, 313 Eisenhower, Dwight and Public Law 280, 684 and relocation program, 689 and termination, 953 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 Eisenhower administration, 686 El Barbon, 748 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 709 Elk, John, 670–671 the Elk (Pa), 298 Elk v. Wilkins, 169, 670–671 Ellicott, Joseph, 290 Ellis, Albert G., 334 Ellsworth, Henry J., 315 Ellsworth, Henry L., 315, 316, 317, 319 Emartta, Charley, 316 Emartta, Holata, 316 Emathla, Charley, 804 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 829 Eminent domain, 136 Emma, Queen, 203 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon et al. v. Alfred L. Smith et al., 175 Endangered Species Act, 722–723 Enehau Thlucco, 292 Energy Policy Act, 734 Energy projects, 63

ABC-CLIO

Energy resource management, 734 England, 13, 75, 77, 162 and Indian alliances, 52 and treaty negotiation, 51, 53 and war with France, 55 English as a second language (ESL) instruction, 710 Enigmanee (Flies as He Walks), 294 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 117, 161 Environmental regulation, 117–118 EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA), 62, 708 Equal Rights for Everyone, 722 Erasmus, George Henry, 804–805 Erie Canal, 84 Es-kin-in-zin (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Es-Kun Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Esa-tai, 871 Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), 287, 323 Eskiminzin (Es-kin-in-zin; Skimmy; Haské Bahnzin), 805–806 Eskimo, 209, 720 Esquimaux, 279 Ethnic cleansing, 165 Etowah, 430 Europe, 6, 13, 39 and Canada, 209 and international agreements, 49–64 treaty negotiation in, 50–53 European aggression and sovereignty, 162–163 European diseases, 17, 134, 253, 254, 270 in Hawaii, 202 European imperialism, 96 Evans, Daniel J., 789 Evans, John, 772 Evarts, Jeremiah, 22, 653 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670 Executive branch, 95–96 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 947 Executive Order 13175, 955 Executive Order Reservations, 926–927. See also Reservation Explanatory Note of 1796, 55, 56 Express trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine External sovereignty, 947. See also Sovereignty Extinguishment, 400

1-800-368-6868

Index Extracurricular activities, and education, 188 Factories. See Trading posts Fair Haired Old Man, 896 Fall, Albert B., 763–764 Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 19, 75, 245, 246, 443, 645, 648 Falling Hail (Wasoukapaha), 294 Fallon Paiute-Shoshone, 116 FAP. See Federal Acknowledgment Process Farmer’s Brother, 75, 76, 287 Farnsworth, H. W., 352 Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP), 927–928, 929, 941, 942, 950, 951, 953 Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, 928 Federal Acknowledgment Project, 176 Federal Act, 678 Federal courts, and canons of treaty construction, 11 Federal Enclaves Act, 669 Federal Indian Law, 693 Federal Power Act, 688–689 Federal Power Commission, 44 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 63, 688–689 Federal programs, tribal administration of, 116–117 Federal Security Agency, 35 Federally recognized tribes, 5, 171, 175, 176–177, 734, 927, 929, 941, 947, 950. See also Nonrecognized tribes; State-recognized tribes Fessenden, William, 202 Fetterman, William, 784, 883 Fetterman Massacre, 271 Fields, Richard, 333 Fields, Sallocooke, 297 Fillmore, Millard, 341, 433, 760, 842, 867 Final Umbrella Agreement, 726 Fire Chief (Pad-a-ga-he), 356 First in the War Party (Shernakitare), 298 First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Self-Government Agreement, 404 First Nations, 209, 216–220, 237, 377, 391, 403, 404–405, 436, 641–642, 663, 720, 726–727, 734, 938, 940–941, 948–950

www.abc-clio.com

definition of, 236 See also individual tribes First Riel Rebellion, 939 First Seminole War, 79, 165 Fish Carrier, 287 Fish-ins, 152 the Fish (Na-maing-sa), 294 Fisher v. District Court, 114 Fishing rights, 25, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, 134, 147–150 in Alaska, 195–196 in Canada, 218 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, 150–155 in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Fiske, Helen Maria. See Jackson, Helen Hunt Fiske, Nathan Welby, 828 Fitch, Congressman, 666–667 Fitzpatrick, Thomas “Broken Hand,” 254, 336, 338, 769 Five Civilized Tribes, 74–75, 77–79, 95, 206, 271, 676–677 and confederate treaty, 103–104 and education, 183–184 and Indian removal, 83 and jurisdiction, 165 and reconstruction treaties, 105–107 and removal, 137 and U.S. Civil War, 58 See also Cherokee; Chickasaw; Choctaw; Creek; Dawes Commission; Seminole Five Nations Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 See also Cayuga; Mohawk; Oneida; Onondaga; Seneca Flathead, 99, 227, 252 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Flathead Indian Reservation, 227 Fletcher, Alice C., 32 Flies as He Walks (Enigmanee), 294 Flood Control Act, 723 Florida, 20, 28, 52, 56, 77 gaming in, 175, 176 and Indian removal, 85 treaties in, 259–265 Florida tribes, 77–79 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, September 18, 1823, 302 See also individual tribes

ABC-CLIO

I-15

Folsom, David, 302 Folsom, Israel, 346 Folsom, Sampson, 337, 346 Folsom, Sophia, 876 Fond du Lac, 157, 341 the Fool Dog (Shon-kah-we-to-ko), 359 Fools Crow, Chief Frank, 705 Forbes, John, 424 Forbes, William H., 376, 377 Ford, John, 802 Foreman, Stephen, 333 Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of, 443 Forney, Daniel M., 301 Forsyth, Robert, 764, 765 Forsyth, Thomas, 301, 430–431, 764, 765, 776, 806–808 Forsyth, William, 806–807 Fort Adams, Treaty of, 416 Fort Belknap Reservation, 170, 678 Fort Berthold Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, 1866, 363–364 Fort Bridger, Treaty of, 227–228. See also Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868 Fort Crawford, 431 Fort Duquesne, 424 Fort Finney, Treaty of, 71–72, 246 Fort Gibson treaty history of, 419 Treaty of, 264 Fort Green Ville, 426–427 Fort Hall Reservation, 228, 372, 374 Fort Hamilton, 73 Fort Harmar, 19, 53 treaty history of, 420 Treaty of, 15, 72, 73, 137, 420, 644, 645 See also Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794; Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789 Fort Harrison, 444, 647 treaty history of, 421 See also Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816 Fort Jackson, Treaty of, 21, 84, 262, 650, 651 Fort John, 422 Fort Knox, 443

1-800-368-6868

I-16

Index

Fort Laramie treaty history of, 421–423 Treaty of, 24, 29, 64, 101, 106, 139, 255, 256–257, 269, 271, 691, 705, 706, 719 treaty document, 498–500 See also Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851 Fort McDowell, 136 Fort McIntosh, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, 137, 246, 285, 420. See also Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785 Fort McPherson, 400, 401 Fort Miami, 75 Fort Pitt treaty history of, 424–425 Treaty of, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 953 See also Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778 Fort Stanwix, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, 73, 75, 137, 246, 288, 639, 641 treaty document, 450–451 See also Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768; Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784 Fort Sumner treaty history of, 425–426 See also Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868 Fort Wayne, Treaty of, 20, 21, 247, 440, 442, 444, 646 Fort William, 422 Fort Wise, Treaty of, 269 Fos-har-jo, 362 Foster, Lafayette S., 800 Foster care. See Child welfare Four Lakes, Battle of, 227 Fowler, Emily, 829 Fox, 17, 30, 70, 100, 103, 278 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Fox, September 14, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291, 456–459 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 303–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Fox, George, 873 Fox, Joel, 63 Fox, Noel, 156 FPC v. Tuscarora, 44 France, 13, 28, 49, 162 and Canada, 209, 235, 236–237 and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202, 229 and Indian alliances, 52 and Louisiana Cession, 55–56 and Louisiana Purchase, 55, 77, 84, 134, 137, 252, 417 and Northeast, 243–244 and war with England, 55 See also French and Indian War Francis, Turbot, 640 Frank, Billy, Jr., 152, 707 Franklin, Benjamin, 51, 69, 282, 823, 874 and Canassatego, 756, 757 and Hendrick, 822 Franklin, Jesse, 297 Franklin, Treaty of, 264 Franklin, William, 282 Free-passage treaties, 100 Freedmen’s Bureau, 29–30 Freeman, Thomas, 442 Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 86 Frémont, John Charles, 660, 769, 770

ABC-CLIO

French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War), 27, 69, 211, 238, 245, 424, 440, 637, 638 French Revolution, 211 Friends (Quakers), 184 Funding for education, 182, 190 Fur trade, 17, 84, 136, 155, 421–422, 430–431, 938–939. See also Trade Furnas, Robert W., 356 Ga-he-ga-zhinga (Little Chief), 356 Gadsden, Christopher, 808 Gadsden, James, 88, 302, 313, 316, 808–809 Gadsden Purchase, 57. See also Gadsden, James Gaiant’waka, 815 Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 753, 810–811, 835–836 Gaines, John, 225, 229 table 1 Gaiwí:yo, 814–816 Galissoniere, Marquis de la, 862 Gallup, Albert, 330 Gambling. See Gaming Gaming, 8–9, 36, 118, 121–124, 175–176, 643, 723–725, 928, 942. See also Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Garcia, Micente, 100 Garden River, 436 Gardiner, James B., 89, 312 Garland, Samuel, 346 Gas, 140. See also Natural resources Gates, Horatio, 757 Gatewood, Charles, 813 Gathering rights, 41, 45, 134, 147–150 in Great Lakes, 155, 158–159 in Pacific Northwest, 159 Gauthier, John, 792 Gawaso Wanneh (Arthur Parker), 816 Gay Head Wampanoag, 116 General, Alexander, 796 General, Levi (Deskaheh), 796–797 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 7, 24, 30, 32–33, 33, 36, 59–60, 109–110, 138, 167, 206, 672–673, 920, 921, 954 and Alaska, 195 and assimilation, 922–923 and Atoka Agreement, 674, 675 and Curtis Act, 676 and Elk v. Wilkins, 671 and guardianship/wardship, 932 and Indian country, 933

1-800-368-6868

Index and Indian Reorganization Act, 680 and Indian Territory, 937 and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 694 and Rice v. Cayetano, 732 and sacred site, 947 and sovereignty, 948 See also Allotment; Assimilation General Land Office, 29 General trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine George II, 638, 639, 823 George III, 55, 69, 163, 211, 279, 640, 759, 814 George V, 796 Georgia, 16, 21, 22–23, 40, 52, 56–57, 72 and Indian removal, 85 and jurisdiction, 165–166 removal in, 263–264 Germany, 229 Geronimo (Goyathlay, Goyakla, Goyahkla; He Who Yawns), 188, 268, 812–813 Ghent, Treaty of, 56, 78, 80, 237, 647, 649, 650–651, 651. See also War of 1812 GI Bill. See Servicemen’s Readjustment Act Gibbon, John, 898 Gibbs, John, 860 Gibson, George, 419 Gibson, Henry B., 302 Gift giving, 255 Gila River, 116 Gilas, 267 Gilbert, Henry, 341, 347 Gildersleeves, 705 Gillet, Ransom H., 329 Gish-tah-wah-gu (Strong Walker), 349, 356 Gitksan, 729–730 Gladwin, Henry, 879 Glass, 316 GLIFWC. See Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Godfrey, Francis, 330 Gold, 31 in Black Hills, 139–140, 719 in California, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, 254, 659, 660 in Colorado, 272 See also Natural resources Good Chief (Petaheick), 298 Good Hunter, Captain, 312 Good Squad, 705

www.abc-clio.com

Good Thunder, 356 Goodnight, Charles, 871 Goodrich, William, 744 Goodstream (Ohnaweio), 289 Gordeau Reservation, 302 Gordon, Harry, 424 Gorton, Slade, 153, 789 Gostrax, Chief, 282 Gousa, 297 Gover, Kevin, 733 Government-to-government relationship, 732, 733, 930–931, 958 Goyahkla (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Goyakla (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Goyathlay (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Gra-ta-mah-zhe (Standing Hawk), 356 Graham, George, 296 Graham, John, 295, 744 Graham, Richard, 301 Grand Council of the Cree, 215, 395, 397 Grand Pawnee, 319 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee— Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Grand Portage, 157, 341 Grand River, 272 Grand Traverse Band, 43 Grande Ronde Reservation, 226 Grandpré, Treaty of, 259 Grant, Ulysses S., 31, 58, 166, 184, 231 table 4, 232, 272, 768, 777, 854, 868 and Parker, Ely S., 869 and Satanta, 892–893 Grant administration, 30 Grattan, John L., 784 Grattan, Lawrence, 900–901 Grave Creek, 342 Graves, protection of, 124–126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Graves, Thomas, 308 Gray, Horace, 670 Gray, William, 289 Gray Head, 755 Greasy Grass, Battle of, 256 Great American Desert, 936 Great Britain, 6, 28, 49, 55, 88, 97 and Canada, 209, 210, 211, 214, 235, 236, 237–238

ABC-CLIO

I-17

and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202 and Iroquois Confederacy, treaty with, September 24, 1664, 211 and Nigeria, 170 and Northeast, 243–244 and Revolutionary War, 11, 13–14, 18–19, 163, 259–260 and Revolutionary War (U.S.), 212 and treaty negotiation, 51 and War of 1812, 17, 21, 56, 84, 137 Great Dakota Reservation, 139 Great Depression, 34 Great Father, 252–253, 254 Great Lakes, 155–156, 214, 216 gathering rights in, 158–159 treaties in, 243–249 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), 158, 159, 433, 721, 813 Great Mahele, 201, 230 Great Peace. See Montreal, Treaty of Great Peace Commission, 106, 107 Great Plains, 30 treaties in, 251–257 Great Sioux Agreement, 32 Great Sioux Reservation, 31, 256, 385, 719 Great Society programs, 35, 114 Great Speaker (Majigabo), 798 Great-Tree, 74 Great Walker (Mah-ne-hah-nah), 302 Greene, Nathaniel, 426 Greenland, 177 Greenville treaty history of, 426–427 Treaty of, 19, 20, 55, 76, 79, 245, 246, 421, 426–427, 443, 645, 646 See also Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814 Greenwood, Alfred B., 351, 352 Gregory, Dick, 152 Greig, John, 302 Grimm, Frank, 705 Gros Bled (Wabakinklelia), 292 Gros Ventre, 24, 101, 678–679 Grotius, Hugo, 50, 54, 924 Ground, Jabez, 349 GSA. See Gwich’in Settlement Area Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 24, 29, 96, 100, 143, 268, 272, 434, 659, 660. See also Mexican-American War

1-800-368-6868

I-18

Index

Guadalupe (wife of Kicking Bird), 838 Guardianship/wardship, 931–932 Guatanamo, 272 Guerin v. The Queen, 949 Guernsey, Orrin, 358, 359, 360, 364 Guess, George, 78, 297, 308 Guitan, 851 Gulf of Mexico, 56 Gunpowder, 49 Gunshot Treaty, 239 Guopahko (Mamadayte), 851 Gutenberg, Johannes, 49 Gwich’in (Gwitchin; People of the Caribou), 240, 392 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, April 1992, 400–401 Gwich’in Land and Water Board, 401 Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board, 401 Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board, 401 Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA), 400, 401 Gwich’ya Gwich’in, 400 Gwynne, John, 674 Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk), 304 Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee (Peter Pitchlynn), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Hagan, William T., 32 Hahshequarhiqua, 291 Haibohaa (Branching Horn), 294 Haida, 196 Haida Nation case, 220 Hainai, 268 Haisanwee (Horn), 294 Haldimand, Frederick, 759 Hale, C. H., 230 table 2, 353 Half King (Dunquod), 298 Half-Town, 74 Halfbreed Commission, 392 Halfbreed Scrip, 392 Hall, Emmett, 702 Hamilton, Allen, 330 Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 715–716 Hamtramck, John F., 914 Handsome Lake (Sganyadí:yoh; Skaniadario), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Hard Hickory, 312 Hard Labor, Treaty of, 282 Hard Rock Café, Seminole purchase of, 735

www.abc-clio.com

Hard Rock International Restaurants, 735 Hard Walker (Wastch-com-ma-nu), 356 Harjo, Bill. See Harjo, Chitto Harjo, Chitto (Bill Harjo), 817–818 Harjo, Suzan Shown, 818–819 Harlan, Marshall, 671 Harland, James, 368 Harmar, Josiah, 73, 420, 745, 849, 902, 903, 913 Harmar’s defeat, 245 Harney, William, 256, 269, 271, 358, 366, 367, 369, 370, 901 Harper, Kenton, 337 Harris, Carey A., 328, 329 Harrison, Benjamin, 204 Harrison, William Henry, 16, 20, 80, 246–247, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 421, 436, 819–820 and Black Hawk, 752–753 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 811 and Hawaii, 204 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and Little Turtle, 850 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 and St. Louis, 438 and Tecumseh, 905 and Thames, Battle of the, 648–649 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, 646–647 and Tippecanoe River, 440 and Vincennes, 442–443 and Wabash River, 444 and Wayne, Anthony, 914 and Wells, William, 914 Hartford, Treaty of, 245 Harvey, Thomas H., 332, 333 Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod (Barboncito), 370, 371, 412, 748–749 Haské Bahnzin (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Haskell Boarding School, 188, 189, 190. See also Schools Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU), 190 Hastiin Adiits’a’ii (Henry Chee Dodge), 798–799 Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), 13, 163, 164. See also Iroquois Haudenosaunee League of Nations, 177 Haunsiaugh (Boyer), 298

ABC-CLIO

Havasupai, 272 Haven, Jens, 279 Hawaii, 199–207 agriculture in, 202, 203, 206 annexation of, 200, 202–203, 205–207 and business community, 203–204 European diseases in, 202 foreign treaties in, 199–202 and France, 199, 200, 201–202, 229 government overthrow in, 204–205 and Great Britain, 199, 200, 201–202 land claims in, 200–202 and land compensation, 200 and land ownership, 201–202, 205–207 and reciprocity with U.S., 202–203 religion in, 200 sovereignty in, 203, 207 sugar industry in, 201–202, 203, 204, 206 and trade, 203, 204, 232 treaties in, 228–232, 231 table 4 voting in, 203–204 whaling industry in, 201, 202, 203 See also Kingdom of Hawaii Hawaii Committee of Public Safety, 204 Hawaii Constitution of 1840, 200 Hawaii Constitution of 1864, 203 Hawaiian Homelands Program, 207 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 206, 732 Hawaiian Islands Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, December 1849, 231 table 4, 232 Hawaiian Natives, 199–207 Hawaiian Organic Act, 205, 206 Hawaiians, 732–733 Hawkins, Benjamin, 286, 289, 290, 821–822, 856–857 Hawley, Joseph, 640 Hayes, Rutherford B., 868 HBC. See Hudson’s Bay Company He Who Yawns (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Head, Lafayette, 354 Headright, 140 Heald, Nathan, 442, 807, 915 Heart, Jonathan, 420 Heavy Clouds (Shu-kah-bi), 349 Heckewelder, John, 246

1-800-368-6868

Index Hell Gate, 227, 230 table 2 Helm, Linai T., 807 Henderson, John B., 271, 366, 367, 369 Hendrick (Theyanoguin, Tiyanoga), 243, 822–823, 836 Henley, Thomas J., 661 Henry the Navigator, 49 Hepburn, William, 745 Hepner, George, 342 Her-Holy-Door, 897, 899 Hernandez, General, 835 Herrera, 853 Herriman, David, 341 HHCA. See Hawaiian Homes Commission Act Hick, John, 316 Hickel, Walter, 197 Hickory Log, 430 Hicks, Charles, 888 Hicks, John, 343 Hidatsa, 106, 252, 253, 254 Higby, William, 800 Hill, John, 279 Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt. See Joseph, Chief HINU. See Haskell Indian Nations University His Red Nation (Little Crow), 847–848 Historic Sites Act, 947 Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 677, 824–825 Ho-Chunk, 23 Hog Creek Shawnee, 312 Hoh, 99 Hole-in-the-Day (Que-we-zance), 355, 365 Holland, 162 Holland Land Company, 688 Hollow Horn Bear, 901 Holston, Treaty of, 19, 22, 251, 286, 287, 656. See also Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791 Holy Ground, Battle of, 650 Homestead Act, 27, 29, 32, 59, 270, 947 Honas (Ronesass), 298 Honolulu Rifles, 203 Hoo-yah (the Eagle), 324 Hooker Jim, 768 Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, 174–175 Hoover Commission, 34–35 Hopewell, Treaty of, 19, 22, 57, 71–72, 211, 260–261, 285, 655–656. See also Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785

www.abc-clio.com

Hopi, 272, 410 Hopi Reservation, 140 Hopson, Peregrine Thomas, 51 Horn (Haisanwee), 294 Horne, Esther Burnett, 188, 189 Horonu, 330 Horseshoe Bend, Battle of (Tohopeka), 84, 649–651 Hosmer, Brian C., 838 House Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, 197 House Concurrent Resolution 108, 35, 111, 171, 680, 683–684, 694, 932, 948, 952–953. See also Termination House Resolution 4497, 682–683 Howard, Benjamin, 807 Howard, Francis, 276, 277–278 Howard, Mary, 894 Howard, Oliver Otis, 777–778 Howe, S. D., 230 table 2, 353 Howechees Treaty with the Howechees, etc., April 1851, 231 table 3 Howling Wolf, 838 Hoxie, Frederick, 253–254 Hualapai, 272, 273 Hubbard, Asahel W., 800 Hubbard, Niles, 886 Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), 214, 235, 238–239, 335, 664, 665, 715 Huebschmann, Francis, 339, 348 Hui Ala Loa, 207 Hulbert, John, 323, 330 Hull, William, 293, 791, 915 Human remains, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Hunkapapa (Sioux; Hunkpapa, Onkpahpah) Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Hunt, Alexander C., 368 Hunting rights, 22, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, 134 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, 150–155 in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Huntington, J. W. Perit, 227, 230 table 2, 355, 357, 360

ABC-CLIO

I-19

Huntington, Samuel, 744 Hupa Reservation, 671 Huron, 51, 75, 211, 238, 638 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 335 Huron-Petun, 278 Hurr, William, 352 Huss, John, 333 Hutchins, Charles, 230 table 2, 353 Hydaburg, 196 Hydro-Quebec. See Quebec HydroElectric Commission Hyman, Harold, 27 I-on-i. See Aionai ICC. See Indian Claims Commission ICRA. See Indian Civil Rights Act ICWA. See Indian Child Welfare Act Idaho, 225 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 931 Identity, 689–690 Ignace, Georgianna, 792 IGR. See Institute for Government Research IGRA. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act IITC. See International Indian Treaty Council Illinois, treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Illinois Confederacy, 412 Implied abrogation, 45 In re Estate of Kamehameha IV, 205 Indian Act of Canada, 217, 401, 405, 668, 949 Bill C-31, 668 Indian affairs, control of, 41 Indian Affairs Committee, 115 Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Vol. 1 and 2, 693 Indian Appropriations Act, 31, 97, 666–667, 667 Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 934 Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act, 681 Indian Bill of Rights, 674 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 36, 118–121, 174, 710 Indian Citizenship Act, 33 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 36, 692–693 Indian Civilization Act, 181–182, 270 Indian Civilization Fund Act, 28 Indian Claims Commission Act (Public Law 726), 34, 171, 682–683. See also Cohen, Felix S.

1-800-368-6868

I-20

Index

Indian Claims Commission (ICC), 133–134, 136, 139–140, 171, 257, 679, 680, 719, 825–826 and Indian New Deal, 934 and specific claims, 949, 950 See also Cohen, Felix S. Indian Code, 321 Indian country, 933. See also Indian Territory Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge (Kennedy Report), 709 Indian Education Act, 116, 709 Indian Education Assistance Act, 116 Indian Education Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 36 Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act, 116. See also Schools Indian Financing Act, 117, 929 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 36, 117, 118, 121–124, 175, 643, 723–725, 735, 929, 956. See also Gaming Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 116 Indian Health Service, 115, 116, 172, 941, 950 Indian Intercourse Acts, 28 Indian Land Consolidation Act, 117 Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 116 Indian Mineral Development Act, 36, 117 Indian nations, treaties between, 272–273 Indian New Deal, 34, 35, 161, 179, 680, 681, 682, 934–935. See also Cohen, Felix S.; Collier, John; Costo, Rupert Indian Nonintercourse Act, 919 Indian Oil Leasing Act, 927 Indian Peace Commission, 30, 256, 426 Indian removal, 23–24, 28–29, 83–92, 133, 137, 165, 263–265, 416–417, 430, 935–936 end of, 31 origins of, 83–86 See also Indian Removal Act; Relocation Indian Removal Act, 28, 86, 87, 88, 109, 137, 263–264, 305,

www.abc-clio.com

310, 311, 318, 320, 643, 652–653, 657, 730, 935, 936 and Indian Territory, 947, 948 See also Indian Removal Indian Removal bill, 55 Indian Reorganization Act (WheelerHoward Act), 34, 35, 36, 111, 133, 170–171, 680–681 and Alaska, 196 and allotments, 921 and Federal Acknowledgment Process, 928 and guardianship/wardship, 932 and Indian Allotment Act, 672 and Indian New Deal, 934 and Morton v. Mancari, 708 and Nixon, Richard, 698 See also Allotments; Cohen, Felix S.; Collier, John Indian rights. See Treaty Rights Indian Rights Association (IRA), 826–827 Indian Self-Determination Act, 116, 712 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 173 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 697, 710 Indian Service, 27, 34 and education, 184 Indian Specific Claims Commission, 949 Indian Springs, Treaty of, 263, 856, 857 Indian Territory, 936–937 Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 See also Indian country; Indian land; Vincennes, Indiana Indian title, 920. See also Aboriginal title Indian Trade Act, 28 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 645, 936 and Alaska, 195 Indian Tribal Energy and SelfDetermination Act, 734 Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act, 929 Indian Tribal Justice Act, 116 Indian War of 1855—1856, 227, 428

ABC-CLIO

Indiana, 19 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Indians of All Tribes, 691 Inherent Right to Self-Government policy, 726 Inhofe, Senator, 140 Inshta Theamba (Susette LaFlesche Tibbles), 905–906 Institute for Government Research (IGR), 33–34, 679 Integration, 34–35 Inter Caetera, 954 Intercourse, and trade, 27–28 Intercourse Acts, 164–165 Internal sovereignty, 947. See also Sovereignty International agreements, Indian treaties as, 49–64 International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), 712 International law, 49–50, 54 International treaties and legal standards, 55 and negotiation subjects, 54 Inuit, 195, 209, 216, 217, 218, 220, 240, 399, 664, 715–716, 720, 937–938 British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, April 8, 1765, 279–280 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 395–396 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), 938 Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC), 398, 401–402, 938 Inuktitut, 279, 396, 403 Inupiat, 196 Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest Territories, 240 Inuvialuit Corporate Group, 399 Inuvialuit Final Agreements, June 1984, 398–400, 938 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 399 Inuvik, 400 Iou-Ol-Umnes Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Iowa repatriation in, 176 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Iowa Indians, 30, 100, 103

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Ioway and Prairie du Chien, 431 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Iqaluit, 240 Iron Eye (Joseph LaFlesche), 905–906 Iron Whip (Wah-gah-sap-pi), 356 Iron Wind (Tatarnaza), 294 Iroquois, 13, 19, 23, 51, 53, 75, 211, 235, 236, 237, 243, 244, 246, 638 and British Crown, treaty with, September 24, 1664, 211 and Fort Harmar, 420 See also Haudenosaunee; Six Nations Iroquois Loyalists, 239 Isabella, Queen, 49 Isabella Indian Reservation, 355 Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha (Puffing Eyes), 358 Isparhecher, Chief, 135, 676 Istowun-eh’pata (Packs a Knife), 785 ITC. See Inuit Tapirisat Corporation J-a-pu (the One Who Walks against the Others), Chief, 303 Jackson, Andrew, 16, 22, 23, 25, 56, 79, 81, 166, 213, 262, 294, 297, 299, 301, 650, 827–828, 835, 844, 865, 909 and Black Hawk, 754 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 762 and Cass, Lewis, 772 and civilization policy, 83 and Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty, 310 and Dodge, Henry, 798 and eminent domain, 136 and Gadsden, James, 808 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 810, 811

www.abc-clio.com

and Ghent, Treaty of, 651 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 and Indian removal, 84, 85–86, 88, 90, 91, 416, 430, 935 and Indian Removal Act, 652, 653 and Indian Territory, 936 and Lea, Luke, 842 and McIntosh, William, Jr., 857 and New Echota Treaty, 320–321 and Pushmataha, 882, 883 and removal, 263–264, 265, 305 and Ross, John, 891 and Trail of Tears, 657, 658 and trust responsibility, 957 and Worcester v. Georgia, 655, 656 Jackson, Helen Hunt (Helen Maria Fiske), 828–830, 906 Jackson, Henry, 197, 683, 952 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 Jackson, Sheldon, 195 Jackson, William S., 829 James, Edward, 159 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 240, 395–396, 397, 726, 938 James Bay Development Corporation, 215, 395, 397 James Bay Energy Corporation, 395, 397 James Bay Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 9 James I, 76 James II, 76 Japan, 199, 229, 687 Japanese Canadians, 687 Jaramillo, Maria Josefa, 770 Jason, Chief, 374 Jay, John, 75–76 Jay Treaty, 55, 56, 237, 645, 646 JBNQA. See James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement Jefferson, Thomas, 19–20, 55, 69, 76, 77, 78, 134, 251, 252–253, 436, 648, 831–832 and Boudinot, 758 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 761 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Clark, William, 775 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Handsome Lake, 815 and Harrison, William Henry, 819–820 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822

ABC-CLIO

I-21

and Indian removal, 83–84, 416, 935 and land cessions, 426–427 and Lewis, Meriwether, 846 and Louisiana Purchase, 653 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs, 252–253 and St. Clair, Arthur, 902 and St. Louis, 438 and Tippecanoe River, 440 treaties under, 262 and Vincennes, 442 Jemison, Alice Mae Lee, 832–833 Jennings, Jonathan, 299, 314, 315 Jerome, David H., 833–834. See also Jerome Commission Jerome Commission (Cherokee Commission), 271, 833. See also Jerome, David H. Jesup, Thomas S., 834–836 Jesus, 815 Jicarilla Apache, 25, 144, 268, 272 Jicarilla v. Andrus, 43 Jim, Chief, 338 Jimerson, Ray, 832 Job Corps, 114 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), 950 Joe, Chief, 338 John Chup-co (Long John), 362 John Hat (Tauromee), 365 John II, 49 Johnson, Andrew, 271 Johnson, Guy, 759, 836 Johnson, Lyndon, 35, 36, 114, 115, 173, 698 and Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 912 Johnson, Richard, 90 Johnson, Sir William, 69, 238, 282, 639, 641-642, 759, 823, 836 Johnson administration, 709 Johnson O’Malley Act, 709, 934 Johnson v. M’Intosh, 96, 165, 652, 656, 685–686, 919–920, 924–925, 953 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 948 Johnston, Jane, 894 Johnston, John, 330, 894, 914 Johnston, Joseph, 106 Joint Special Committee on the Conduct of the Indian Tribes, 270

1-800-368-6868

I-22

Index

Joint Special Committee to Inquire into the Condition of the Indian Tribes, 800. See also Doolittle Commission Jolliet, Louis, 430 Jolly, John, 315 Jondreau, William, 156 Jones, Chief Wilson, 135 Jones, Horatio, 290 Jones, John T., 352, 365 Jones, Thomas ap Catesby, 200, 231 table 4 Jones, William, 183, 186, 824 Jones v. Meehan, 42, 62 Joseph, Chief (Joseph the Younger; Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt; Thunder Rolling in the Mountains), 837 Joseph (Ronioness), 298 Joseph the Younger. See Joseph, Chief Jouett, Charles, 291 Journeycake, Solomon, 309 Joy, James F., 369 JTPA. See Job Training Partnership Act Judd, Gerrit P., 201, 202 Judge, Thomas L., 332 Judson, Wilfred, 215, 701, 702 Jumper, 316 Jurisdiction and colonial America, 162, 163 criminal, 31, 112, 172–173 issues of, 161–177 See also Sovereignty Ka-gway-dosh, 365 Ka-ta-ka. See Kataka Ka-zhe-cah, 365 Kaahna, 300 Kagama, 671 Kah milt-pah, 345 Kah-nung-da-tla-geh (Major Ridge), 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321, 322, 333, 430, 888, 909 Kahnawake, 217 Kaintwakon. See Cornplanter Kakawipilpathy, 286 Kakima, 437 Kalakaua, David, 203, 231 table 4, 232 Kalaniana’ole, Kuhio, 205–206 Kalapuya, 98, 225, 226, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Kalispel Reservation, 227 Kamaiakan, 409, 410 Kamehameha I, 229 Kamehameha II, 229 Kamehameha III, 229, 230, 231 table 4 Kamehameha IV, 202, 205, 230 Kamehameha V, 203, 230–231 Kanesatake (Lac-des-DeuxMontagnes), 638 Kansa (Cansa, Kanza), 104, 252, 414 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 1862, 352 Kansas, 29, 30 jurisdiction in, 166 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Kansas Indians Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, 1815, 296 Kansas Indians case, 166 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 936 Kansas Reservation, 351, 352 Kanza. See Kansa Kappler, Charles J., 101 Karaho, John, 365 Karok, 175 Kashaya Pomo, 9 Kaska Dena, 403 Kaskaskia, 79–80, 100 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442

ABC-CLIO

Kataka (Ka-ta-ka) Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Katewah, 301 Kathlamet, 229 table 1 Kativik Regional Government, 396, 397 Kaw (Kanza), 414 Kaw’s Widow (Mee-kiss), 325 Kearny, Stephen, 411, 769, 770 Keatechee, 291 Kechemaqua (Kechemaquaw), 300, 301 Kechewaishke (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Kee-o-kuck (the Watchful Fox), 328 Kee-way-gee-zhig (Returning Sky), 324 Keechy Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Keeocuck (Keokuk), 302, 364, 753, 754, 776, 807, 811 Keith, Charles B., 353 Kekionga, 443 Keneschoo, 766 Kennedy, John F., 698, 709, 738 Kennedy, Robert, 738 Kennedy administration, 173 Kennedy Report. See Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge Kennedy v. Becker, 151 Kennewick Man, 725–726 Kenote, George, 792 Kentucky, 28 Keokuk (Keeocuck), 302, 364, 753, 754, 776, 807, 811 Keweenaw Bay, 155 Kiasutha, 782 Kickapoo, 72, 73, 79, 100 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Kickapoo, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Kickapoo, August 30, 1819, 300 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 19,1820, 299–300

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermillion, September 5, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October 24, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Wabash River, 443 Kickapoo Reservation, 353 Kicking Bird (Watohkonk, Black Eagle; Ténéangopte, Tene-Angpote, Eagle Striking with Talons), 838, 850, 899 Kidd, Meredith H., 786 Kik-i-állus Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Kilkatat, 344–345 King Philip’s War. See Metacom’s War Kingdom of Hawaii, 207, 732–733. See also Hawaii Kingsbury, Cyrus, 417 Kinship relationship, 39 Kintpuash (Captain Jack), 767–768 Kinzie, John, 807 Kinzua Dam project, 44 Kiowa, 10, 30, 40, 43, 61, 100, 104, 110, 268–269, 270, 271, 677–678 and education, 182 and jurisdiction, 168–169 and reconstruction treaty, 106–107 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366

www.abc-clio.com

See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Reservation, 107, 110, 677 Kiowa-Comanche Reservation, 32, 107 Kisketuhug, 341 Kitchkume, Louise, 792 Kitsai, 268 Klallam, 154, 238 Klamath, 35, 104, 116, 139, 227, 230 table 2 and timber, 141 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., October 14, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency Plan, 141 Klamath Indian Reservation, 227 Klamath Reservation, 141, 227 Klamath Termination Act, 141, 694 Klamath Tribal Forest Management Plans, 141 Klatskania, 229 table 1 Klinquit, 345 Kluane, 727 Knox, Henry, 14–15, 19, 53, 73, 74, 261, 284, 287, 420, 744, 839–840, 903 and Indian removal, 83 Ko-Yate Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-ASi, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Kondiaronk (the Rat), 278 Konnack, 229 table 1 Konohiki (land managers), 228 Koo-tah-waun-nay, 319 Kootenai Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Kosciuszko, Tadeusz, 850 Kouns, Nathan, 314, 315 Kow-was-say-ee, 345 Kuleana grants, 201 Kutenai, 99, 227 Kwalin Dun, 727 La Barr, Governor, 236 La-da-ila, 895 La Famine, Treaty of, 236 La Ferine, 300 La Flesche, Francis, 179

ABC-CLIO

I-23

La Flesche, Joseph (E-sta-mah-za), 356 La-ma-noan (the Axe), 294 La-mee-pris-jeau (Sea Wolf), 294 La Nanette, 765 La Pointe, 341 La Trappe (Majigabo), 798 Labrador, 216 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, 938 Lac Court Orielles, 341 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 41, 156, 721–722 Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO), 157 Lac De Flambeau, 341 Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (Kanesatake), 638 Lac du Flambeau (LdF), 157 Lac-Saint-Jean, 638 LaDuke, Vincent, 840 LaDuke, Winona, 840–842 LaFlesche, Francis, 906 LaFlesche, Joseph (Iron Eye), 905–906 LaFlesche, Mary Gale, 905–906 LaFlesche, Susan, 906 LaFlesche, Suzette “Bright Eyes,” 830 Lafountain, F., 330 Lake of Two Mountains, 75 Lake Winnibigoshish Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Lakmiut Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Lakota Reservation, 107, 139 Lakota (Sioux), 101, 106, 166–167, 179, 705 and gold mining, 139–140 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 704–706 See also Sioux Lamberth, Royce, 955 Lambros, Nicholas J., 710–711 Lamer, Antonio, 728 Lamont, Lawrence “Buddy,” 705 Lamson, Chauncey, 848 Lamson, Nathan, 848

1-800-368-6868

I-24

Index

Lanape, 424. See also Delaware Land and eminent domain, 136 in exchange for land, 137 and natural resources, 136–137 as real property, 134–135 reservations as payment for, 137–138 and selling rights, 135 value of, 136–137 Land acquisition, 13, 14–18, 19–25, 76. See also Land cession Land and Water Settlement Acts, 116 Land cession, 14, 39 and Indian removal, 83–92 and Jefferson, Thomas, 426–427 See also Land acquisition Land claims in Alaska, 196–199 in Canada, 215–217 in Hawaii, 200–202 Land compensation, 14–15, 16, 17–18, 20, 21–22, 24, 42, 44, 101–102, 136 in Alaska, 195, 196–198 in Canada, 239, 240, 241 and confederate treaties, 103–104 in Hawaii, 200 lack of, 133–134 in Northern Plains, 255, 257 in the South, 77–78, 79 in southeast, 261 in southern plains and southwest, 269, 270, 272 and unratified treaties, 97, 98, 99 and U.S. Constitution, 75, 76, 136 See also Land cession; Land ownership; Land payments; under individual treaties; under individual treaty sites Land Grant College Act. See Morrill Act Land in Severalty Act. See General Allotment Act Land Ordinance, 27, 72 Land ownership, 24, 63, 133, 134 and allotments, 138 in Hawaii, 201–202 and Indian culture, 144 and religion, 144 and sovereignty, 135–136 See also Allotment; Natural resources; Removal; Reservations Land tenure, 8, 134, 135 Land title, 919 and doctrine of discovery, 924–925

www.abc-clio.com

See also Aboriginal title Lane, Barbara, 706 Lane, Joseph, 225, 229 table 1 Langtree, Samuel D., 55 Language barrier, 6, 10–11, 15, 135, 148 L’Anse, 341 Laplace, C. P. T., 200, 201 Lapwai, 230 table 2 Treaty of, 227 Laramie, Jacques, 422 Larrabee, Nellie, 784 Larsen, Lewis, 430 Las Casas, Bartolomé de, 50, 924 LaSalle, Robert Cavalier de, 437 Laskin, Bora, 702 Last-in-time rule, 43 Latopia, 286 Latrobe, John, 781 Laurens, Anna, 788 Laurens, Henry, 788 Law, 27 enforcement, 6, 8–9 See also Federal Indian law; Treaty law The Law of Nations (Vattel), 50, 945, 946 Lawrence, Kip, 409 Lawyer (Aleiya), 345, 374 Layauvois, 291 LCO. See Lac Courte Oreilles LCO v. Voigt, 249 LdF. See Lac du Flambeau Le Boeuf (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Le Petit Carbeau, 292 Lea, Luke, 760, 842–843 Leach, D. C., 355 League of Nations, 177 Lean Bear, 352 Leavenworth, Jesse, 269, 358, 367, 755 LeBlanc, Albert, 156, 710–711 Leclede, Pierre, 774 Lee, Arthur, 285 Lee, Robert E., 106, 869 LeFleur, Louis, 843 LeFlore, Chief Greenwood, 9, 86, 264, 843–844 Left Hand (Namos), 352 Legion army, 646 Legislation, 27 Lemoite, 775 Lenape, 163 Lenni Lenape (the Delaware), 13 Lepan Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332

ABC-CLIO

Leschi, Chief, 428, 896 Leupp, Francis, 182, 680, 824, 844–845 Levi, Francis Thomas, 742 Lewis, Andrew, 424 Lewis, Dixon W., 346 Lewis, M. G., 332 Lewis, Meriwether, 252, 415, 438, 775, 837, 845–847 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 See also Clark, William; Lewis and Clark Expedition; Louisiana Purchase Lewis, Reazen, 293 Lewis, Thomas, 424 Lewis, William, 845 Lewis and Clark expedition, 251, 252, 253, 255. See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether Li-ay-was, 345 Liguest, Pierre de LeClede, 439 Liliuokalani, Queen (Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominic), 204, 205, 232 Limited trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine Lincoln, Abraham, 927 Lipan Apache, 268 Litigation, 39 Little Beard, 76 Little Beard’s Reservation, 290 Little Bighorn, Battle of, 256, 719 Little Billy, 287 Little Bluff (Dohasan), 850, 896 Little Chief (Ga-he-ga-zhinga), 356 Little Crow (Taoyateduta; His Red Nation), 441, 847–848 Little Decoria, 356 Little Hawk, 784 Little Hill, 356 Little Moon (We-che-gla-la), 303 Little Mountain, 838 Little Prince, 308 Little Raven, 351, 367 Little Robe, 367 Little Thunder, 900–901 Little Turtle (Michikinikwa), 73, 76, 290, 292, 293, 442, 443, 646, 849–850, 902, 913, 914 Little White Bear (Mato-che-gal-lah), 304 Little Wolf, 352, 801, 802 Littleman, Peter D., 334 Livingston, Robert, 69 Locke, John, 832 Logan, James, 332 Logan, William, 230 table 2

1-800-368-6868

Index Logging, 155 Lone Chief (A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he), 349, 356 Lone Wolf, Chief, 43, 61, 107, 110, 168–169, 677, 838, 850–851 Lone Wolf (A-Kei-Quodle), 677 Lone Wolf the Younger (Mamadayte), 851 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 10, 43, 44, 61, 63, 107, 109, 110–111, 138, 140, 168–169, 271, 677–678, 943, 954 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka), Chief, 360 Long John (John Chup-co), 362 Long Walk, 370–372, 412, 661–662 Longest Walk, 712–713 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 830, 894, 906 Longueuil, 238 Longwha Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Looking Cloud, Fritz Arlo, 744 Looking Glass, 410 Lord Dunsmore’s War, 245, 246 Lorette, 75 Lorimer, L., 293 Loughery, Ardavan S., 334 Louis XIV, 278 Louisiana, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Louisiana Cession, 55–56 Louisiana Purchase, 20, 21, 55, 77, 78, 84, 134, 137, 252, 262, 417, 653 and Indian removal, 935, 936 See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether Louisiana Territory, 427 compensation in, 80 treaties in, 80 Love, Benjamin S., 337 Love, Robert H., 362 Lower Brulé Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Lower Sioux Agency Indian Reservation, 441 Lowry, John, 296 Loyalty, 13 Lumbee Regional Development Association, 950

www.abc-clio.com

Lummi, 154 Lumpkin, Wilson, 22, 656 Lunalilo, King, 203, 231 Lurie, Nancy, 792 Lymans, Wyllys, 851 Lynch, Joseph M., 333 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 174–175, 947 Ma-ha-nin-ga (No Knife), 356 Ma-hos-kah (White Cloud), 302 Ma-laigne, Chief, 333 Macacanaw, 300 Macatewaket, 300 Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir), 292 Mackenzie, Ranald S., 851, 871 Mackenzie Valley Envikronmental Impact Review Board, 401 Madeira Islands, 49 Madison, Dolley, 870 Madison, James, 19, 80, 758 and Cass, Lewis, 771 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Clark, William, 776 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Wabash River, 444 Mah-hee, 352 Mah-ne-hah-nah (Great Walker), 302 Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), 304 Mahawaha, 671 Mahican (Mohegan, Mohican), 116, 243, 305 Main Poc, 439–440, 443 Maine, 75–76 Maine Implementing Act (MIA), 718 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), 247, 716–718 Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC), 718 Maison v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, 152 Majigabo (Great Speaker, or La Trappe), 798 Majoney, Patrick, 715–716 Major Crimes Act, 31, 60, 167, 670, 671, 714, 933, 948 Makaainana (Maka’ainana; commoners), 228 Makah, 99, 155, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Makah, July 20, 1815, 294–295 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, October 6, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Makah, January 31, 1855, 344

ABC-CLIO

I-25

Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 40 Makah v. Schoettler, 152 Makataimeshekiakiak (Black Hawk), 255, 752–754, 776, 798, 807, 810, 811 Makivik Corporation, 215 Malecite (Malisee), 70, 216 Maliseet (Malisee), 116, 211, 235, 236, 237 Maloney, Jake, 742–743 Malotte (DeMaillot), Keziah, 807 Malunthy, 286 Mamadayte (Guopahko; Lone Wolf the Younger), 851 Mamande (Screaming Above), 897 Mamanti, 838, 851 Man-ah-to-wah, 364 Man Who Interprets (Henry Chee Dodge), 798–799 Mandan, 24, 101, 106, 252, 253, 254 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Manifest Destiny, 251 Manitoba Act (Canada), 239, 664, 664–666 Manitoba Post Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 2 Manitoulin Island Treaty, 642 Mankiller, Wilma Pearl, 851–853 Mann, Luther, Jr., 354 Manpinsaba (Black Cloud), 294 Manuelito, 267, 370, 371, 412, 662, 853–854 Manypenny, George W., 24, 226, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 346, 347, 349, 761, 842 Maricopa, 272, 273 Market Revolution, 84 Markham, William, 873 Marquesas Islands, 200 Marquette, Jacques, 430 Marshall, Benjamin, 313 Marshall, Donald, 720 Marshall, John, 11, 22, 40, 56–57, 60, 81, 88, 136, 165–166, 184, 263, 639, 652, 653, 654, 655–656, 671, 692, 832, 920 and aboriginal title, 215 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 762 and doctrine of discovery, 924–925 and domestic dependent nation, 213, 925–926

1-800-368-6868

I-26

Index

Marshall, John (cont.) and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 212–213, 948 and treaties, 954 and Trust Doctrine, 955 Marshall, Thurgood, 112, 113, 703, 722 Marshall, William, 320 Marshall case. See R. v. Marshall Marshall decisions, 216 Marshall Trilogy, 166, 172 Martin, Brice, 333 Martin, Henry W., 364 Martin, Joseph, 286 Martin, Morgan L., 334 Martinez, Mariano, 334 Martland, Ronald, 701 Marufo, Anne, 861 Marvis, Thomas, 308 Mascouten, 278, 443 Masham, Sir William, 915 Mashantucket Pequot, 41, 116 Mashpee Wampanoag, 928, 942 Massachusetts, 30, 72, 75–76 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 179 Massacre Cave, 411 Massacres, 96 Massasoit (Ousa Mequin; Yellow Feather), 854–855, 858, 859 Master of Life, 647 Matacur, William, 309 Mather, Thomas, 304, 413 Matlock, G. C., 333 Mato-che-gal-lah (Little White Bear), 304 Matthew Grey Eyes, 312 Mattz v. Arnett, 45 Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, 324 Maulson, Tom, 157 Maw, George, 308 Mawedopenais, Chief, 377 May-zin (Checkered), 324 Mayhew family, 180 Mayo, 403–404 McArthur, Duncan, 295, 298 McClanahan decision, 42 McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 62, 113, 114, 702–703, 952 McCloud, Janet, 152 McCool, Daniel, 144 McCormick, Kelly Jean, 743 McCoy, Rev. Isaac, 22

www.abc-clio.com

McCoy, John L., 333 McCullough, John L., 421 McCurtain, Daniel, 302 McDonald, J. L., 302 McDonald, Peter, 912 McDougall, William, 665 McElvain, John, 309, 312 McGillivray, Alexander, 52, 260, 261, 287, 648, 649, 839, 855–856 McGilvery, William, 290, 291, 313 McGovern, Francis, 156 McIntosh, D. N., 363 McIntosh, J., 301 McIntosh, William, Jr., 79, 263, 292, 301, 302–303, 649, 810, 856–857, 865 McKay, James, 377 McKean, William K., 342 McKee, Redick, 228, 231 table 3, 660 McKenna, Joseph, 151, 678 McKenney, Thomas L., 307–308, 761, 886. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs McKennon, Archibald S., 786 McKenzie, Ann, 807 McKenzie, Richard, 690 McKinley, William, 232, 676, 824 and Hawaii, 205 McKinley Act, 204 McLachlin, Beverly, 218 McLamore, J., 291 McLaughlin, James, 899 McLean, John, 312 McLish, John, 327 McMinn, Joseph, 297 McNair, Alexander, 776 McNair, Clement V., 333 McNiel, John, 309 McQueen, Peter, 866 Mdewakanton (Medawah-Kanton, Medawakanton, Mendawakanton), 100, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 MDNR. See Michigan Department of Natural Resources Me-cos-ta, 323 Me-mot-way, 325 Me-no-ke-shick, 365 Meacham, Albert B., 31 Meadow Lake Tribal Council, 216 Means, Russell, 700, 704–706, 743, 747, 751, 857–858. See also

ABC-CLIO

American Indian Movement Meanymsecah, 286 Medawah-Kanton. See Mdewakanton Medawakanton. See Mdewakanton Medicine Creek, 230 table 2 treaty history of, 427–428 Treaty of, 61, 63, 99, 106–107, 110, 169, 226, 227, 271, 427–428, 695, 711 See also Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854 Medicine Lodge, Treaty of, 366–367, 677. See also Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867 Medill, William, 24, 334 Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow), 325 Mee-sée-qua-quilch Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Meeds, Lloyd, 712, 713 Meeker, Nathan C., 869 MEI. See Menominee Enterprises, Inc. Meigs, Return J., 291, 292 Memoranda of understanding, 5 Memorandum writers, 35 Menard, Pierre, 309 Mendawakanton. See Mdewakanton Meninock, Chief, 150 Menominee, Chief, 440 Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), 172 Menominee (Menominie), 23, 35, 45, 91–92, 116, 139, 278 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and termination, 172 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Menominee, March 30, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Menominee, February 8, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, February 17, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee, September 3, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Menominee, October 18, 1848, 333–334 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854, 339

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Menominee, February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Menominee Reservation, 112, 684, 695 Menominee Restoration Act, 36 Menominee Termination Act, 45 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 45, 693–695 Mentor-Protégé Program, 33 Meriam, Lewis, 33, 189, 679 Meriam Report, 33–34, 189, 679–680, 682, 923 Meriwether, David, 297, 301 Meriwether, James, 302 Meriwether, Lucy, 845 Merriam Report, 709. See also Assimilation Mes-quaw, 323 Mes-quaw-buck, 322 Mescalero, 25 Mess-Sett, 322 Metacom, 858–861, 916 Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War), 243, 244 Métis (Metis), 209, 214–215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 239, 240, 399, 401, 664–666, 720, 938–940 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 377 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 Metlakatla, 196 Metosenyah, Thomas, 365 Mexican-American War, 28, 29, 57, 659, 660. See also Guadalupe, Treaty of Mexican Cession, 137 Mexican independence, 85 Mexico, 24, 28, 29, 100, 169, 254 and California, 228 and independence from Spain, 53 and Texas, 57 treaties with, 267, 268

www.abc-clio.com

Mi-Chop-Da Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 MIA. See Maine Implementing Act Miami, 16, 17, 20, 55, 72, 73, 79, 90–91, 100, 244, 245, 247, 278, 412, 444 and Fort Harrison, 421 and St. Joseph, 436 and St. Louis, 438 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Miami, October 6, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Miami, February 11, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Miami, November 6, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Miami, November 28, 1840, 330 Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Miantonomi (Miantonomo), 766, 767, 907 Micco, Hoboithle, 856 Michigamia Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Michigan, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 156 Michikinikwa (Little Turtle), 443, 849–850

ABC-CLIO

I-27

Michilimackinac, Michigan treaty history of, 428–429 See also Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820; Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Micmac. See Mi’kmaq MICSA. See Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act Middle Oregon, 230 table 2 Treaty of, 149, 227, 415 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Middleton, Frederick, 803 Migration, westward, 84 Mijaw-ke-ke-shik, 365 Mikasuki Seminoles, 102–103 Mi’kmaq (Micmac), 51–52, 176, 211, 216, 235, 236, 237–238 Mikwendaagoziwag (They Will Not Be Forgotten), 433 Miles, John, 801 Miles, Nelson, 812–813, 901 Military draft, 169 and education, 188 Mille Lacs, 157 Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 11, 41, 42, 46, 62, 157, 158, 730–731, 954 Miller, Samuel, 60, 671 Milroy, Samuel, 330 Min-e-do-wob, 365 Min-tom-in, 325 Mineral resources, 31, 36 in Alaska, 198 See also Natural resources Mingatushka, 286 Mingo, 245 Mingo Pooscoos, 291 Miniconjou, 168 Treaty with the Sioux— Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Mining, 139–141. See also Natural resources Mining Law, 947 Minisink, 52, 282

1-800-368-6868

I-28

Index

Minitaree Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Minnesota, 23 jurisdiction in, 172 Minnesota Enabling Act, 730, 731 Mis-qua-dace, 355 Mishinemackinong, 428 Missionaries, 85 and education, 179, 180, 182–184, 185 See also Religion Missionary associations, 30 Mississauga, 239 Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394, 627–635 Mississippi and Indian removal, 86 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 353, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Mississippi River, 77 Mississippi Territory, 20 and Indian removal, 84 Missouri, 28, 100, 226, 252, 253 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340

www.abc-clio.com

Missouri v. Holland, 45 Missouria, 25 Mitchel, Colin, 656 Mitchel v. United States, 656–657 Mitchell, Chester, 788 Mitchell, D. D., 254, 336, 842 Mitchell, David Brydie, 298 Mitchell, George, 739, 746, 750. See also American Indian Movement Mitchell, John, 365 Mitchell, Mike, 720–721 Mitchell, Samuel, 290 Mitchell case, 720–721 MITSC. See Maine Indian TribalState Commission Miwok, 228 Mix, Charles E., 349, 350 Mixanno, 860 Mixed Seneca Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 M’Kee, John, 297 Mo-chu-no-zhi (Standing Bear), 829–830, 903–904, 905, 906 Mo-cuck-koosh, 329 Mo-less, 352 Mo-sack, Chief, 325 Mo-ta, Chief, 320 Modern treaties/comprehensive land claim agreements (Canada), 215, 216, 235, 236, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941 Modoc, 104, 227, 230 table 2 and timber, 141 Modoc War, 227 Mohawk, 51, 72–73, 75, 217, 236, 243, 244, 278 Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1797, 289 See also Six Nations Mohawk, William, 348 Mohegan. See Mahican Mohican. See Mahican Mojave, 272, 273 Molala (Molel), 225, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Molala, December 21, 1855, 348 Mole Lake, 157 Molel. See Molala Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), 294 Mongrain, 438 Monk, Justice, 663 Monopsony, 15

ABC-CLIO

Monroe, James, 19, 85, 262, 655 and Clark, William, 776 and Gadsden, James, 809 and Indian removal, 416, 935 and Indian Territory, 936 and Jackson, Andrew, 828 Monroe Doctrine, 203 Montagnais, 638 Montalban, Ricardo, 802 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 43 Montana v. United States, 63–64, 113, 174, 714 Montmagny, Governor, 236 Montour (Pauquia), 292 Montreal, Articles of Capitulation of, 637–638 Montreal, Treaty of, August 7, 1701, 235, 236, 244–245, 278–279 Montreal Conference, 236 Moore v. United States, 337 Moor’s Charity School, 180. See also Schools Moose Dung, Chief, 354 Mooshulatubbee. See Mushulatubbe Morgan, George, 246 Morgan, Colonel Jacob, 796, 799 Morgan, Lewis, 816 Morgan, Michael Oliver, 862 Morgan, Thomas J., 185, 186, 826 Morgan, Willoughby, 310 Morgan Report, 205 Morning Star (Dull Knife), 801–802 Morrill, Ashley C., 354, 355 Morrill Act (Land Grant College Act), 27, 29 Morris, Alexander, 377 Morris, Robert, 76, 289 Morris, Thomas, 886 Morrow, William, 392 Morse, Jedidiah, 745 Morton v. Mancari, 62, 708–709 Morton v. Ruiz, 43 Mose-so, 325 Moses, Chief, 385 Moshulatubbee. See Mooshulatubbee “Mother Earth,” 136 Mount Dexter, Treaty of, 20 Movable type, 49 Movie industry, 254 Muache, 272 Muahuache Ute, 272 Mucathaanamickee, 302 Muck Rose, 319, 322 Muckleshoot (Muckelshoot), 152, 154 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Muckuk Kosh, 330

1-800-368-6868

Index Mudeator, Matthew, 343 Munsee, 315 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Murphy, Thomas, 269, 358, 363, 364, 365 Murray, James, 238, 638 Muscogee Creek, 260, 261, 262, 419 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Muscogee Nation v. Hodel, 43 Museums, 125–126 Mush, John, 365 Mushulatubbe (Mooshulatubbee, Moshulatubbee), 86, 264, 302 Musquaconocah, 286 Mut-tut-tah, 364 Myer, Dillon S., 911 Na-al-ye, 342 Na-cho Nyak Dun. See Nacho Nyak Dun Na-hel-ta, 342 Na-maing-sa (the Fish), 294 Nacho Nyak Dun (Na-cho Nyak Dun) Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 403–404 Nader, Ralph, 738 Nag-ga-rash, 352 NAGPRA. See Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Nakota (Sioux) Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Assiniboine; Sioux Namos (Left Hand), 352 Nananawtunu, 860 Nankanandee, 294 Nanticoke, 70, 282 Napoleon, 77, 427, 831 Narbona, Antonia, 267, 410–411 Narbona, Chief, 853

www.abc-clio.com

Narcesagata (the Hard Stone), 294 Narragansett, 116 Nas-waw-kee, 323 Nasa Reah, 301 Naskapi, 240 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 Nascapi Development Corporation, 397 Nascapi Health and Social Services Consultative Committee, 397 National Advisory Council on Indian Education, 709–710 National Assembly of Quebec, 215 National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 35, 682, 792, 794, 934, 958 National Environmental Protection Act, 956 National Forest Service, 174–175 National Historic Preservation Act, 947 National Indian Board of Education, 709 National Indian Education Advisory Committee, 709 National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), 36, 121, 122, 723 National Indian Youth Council, 152 National Industrial Recovery Act, 34 National Museum of the American Indian Act, 118 National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), 733–734 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, 117–118 National Recovery Administration (NRA), 34 Nationalism, 185 Native Alaskans, 195–199 Native American Church, 173, 175 Native American Church v. Navajo Council, 173 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 118, 124–126, 175, 176, 725–726, 947. See also Sacred sites Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act, 116 Native American Programs Act, 929 Native American Rights Fund, 152, 942, 950

ABC-CLIO

I-29

Native Hawaiians, 199–207, 732–733 Native village, 198 Nativist Redstick Creek revolt, 262–263 Natural resources, 133–134, 134–135, 136–137, 144 in Alaska, 195–196 See also Gold; Mineral resources; Mining; Timber; Water Nau-tay-sah-pah, 324 Naush-waw-pi-tant, 322 Navajo, 18, 25, 30, 52, 62, 88, 100, 104, 107, 267, 268, 271, 272, 410–412, 691–692, 702–703, 714–715 and Fort Sumner, 425–426 and gaming, 176 and jurisdiction, 173, 174 and Long Walk, 661–662 Treaty with the Navajo, September, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, 370–372, 552–556 Navajo Reservation, 140, 170, 173, 267, 372, 686, 691–692 Navajo Tribal Code, 714 Navajo Tribal Council, 173 Naw-squi-base, 325 Nawb-bwitt, 325 Nay-gee-zhig (Driving Clouds), 323–324 NCAI. See National Congress of American Indians Ne-con-he-con, 351 Ne-ha-tho-clo, 316 Ne-o-mon-ni, 328 Ne-sour-quoit, 352 Neah Bay, 99, 226 Nebraska, 29, 30 jurisdiction in, 161, 172 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Nee-so-aw-quet, 320 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 114 Neolin, 879 Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf), 328 Nesmith, James W., 800 Nesowakee, 302 Nevada, 175 Nevada v. Hicks, 113 and government-to-government relationship, 930–931 and sovereignty, 948 New Brunswick, 216 New Course of Studies, 187 New Echota treaty history of, 429–430 Treaty of, 16, 23, 88–89, 137, 265, 320–322, 430, 653, 657, 658

1-800-368-6868

I-30

Index

New Echota (cont.) See also Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835 New France, 235 New Mexico Territory, 100 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 731 New Netherlands, 211 New Orleans, 77 New Orleans, Battle of, 85 New York, 23, 55, 75–76, 211 treaties of, 16, 52, 54, 89–90 Treaty of, 261 Treaty with the New York Indians, January 15, 1838, 329 New York Power Authority (NYPA), 688 New Zealand, 203 Newby, E. W. B., 267 Newlands Resolution, 205 Newman, Daniel, 301 Nez Perce (Nez Percé), 99, 104, 107, 137, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 and education, 182 Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, 1855, 345 Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, 1863, 353, 513–518 Treaty with the Nez Percé, August 13, 1868, 374 Nez Perce Reservation, 227 NFA. See Nisga’a Final Agreement Niagara Treaty of 1764, 639–640 Nichol, Alfred, 747 Nicholson, James, 355 Nicolas, Chief, 862 NIGC. See National Indian Gaming Commission Nigeria, 170 Nihinessicoe, 286 Nihipeewa, 286 Nihtat Gwich’in, 400 Nippising, 75 Nisenan, 228 Nisga’a, 215, 216, 241, 701–702 Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA), April 27, 1999, 406–407, 702, 727 Nisqually, 63, 99, 153, 154, 226, 695–696 and fishing rights, 152 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510

www.abc-clio.com

Nisqually River, 152 Nitakechi, 86 Nittuckachee, 302 Nixon, Richard, 35, 36, 115, 116, 172, 173, 689, 691, 709, 747 and Alaska, 197, 198 and Costo, Rupert, 783 and Deer, Ada E., 792 Message to Congress, July 8, 1970, 697–698 Nixon administration, 705, 740 NMAI. See National Museum of the American Indian No-heart, 352 No Knife (Ma-ha-nin-ga), 356 No Water, 784 Nocona, Peta, 871 Noe-Ma Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Noise (Wah-no-ke-ga), 356 Noisy Pawnee Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Nolo, 302 Non-che-ning-ga, 328 Non-Intercourse Act, 15, 212 Nonrecognized tribes, 928, 929, 941–942. See also Federally recognized tribes; State-recognized tribes Noo-whá-ha Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Nook-wa-cháh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Nordwall, Adam, 861 Norris, Thomas, 642 the North, removal treaties in, 89–92 North America, 51 North American Indian, 217 North Carolina, 21 North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs, 950 the Northeast, treaties in, 243–249 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398, 726 Northern Arapaho Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Northern Athapaskan, 400 Northern Cheyenne

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Northern Great Plains, treaties in, 251–257 Northern Ponca, 172, 173 Northern Quebec Inuit Association, 215, 395, 397 Northrop, Sarah Bird, 887 Northwest Angle Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 3, October 3, 1873 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 155 Northwest Mounted Police, 240 Northwest Ordinance, 27–28, 72, 420 Article III, 645 Northwest Territory, 19, 20, 215, 216, 665 compensation in, 80 treaties in, 79–81, 81 table Northwestern Shoshone Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 354 Northwestern Territory Order, 664 Nova Scotia, 216 NQA. See Northeastern Quebec Agreement N’Quentl-má-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 NRA. See National Recovery Administration NTI. See Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Numbered treaties, 236, 239–240 Nunavut, 177, 240 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, May 25, 1993, 401–403, 938 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 402 Nunavut Territory, 216 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), 403 Nunna daul Tsuny, 322 Nye, James W., 354 NYPA. See New York Power Authority O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush, 365 O-sho-ga, 760 Oakes, Richard, 690, 691, 861–862 Oakes, Yvonne, 862 Obail (Obeal), Henry, 815 Obwandiyag (Pontiac), 878–879

1-800-368-6868

Index Oche Haujo, 292 Ochechote, 345 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 730, 948 Odanak, 638 Odawa. See Ottawa Oe-quee-wee-sance, 329 OEO. See Office of Economic Opportunity O’Fallon, Benjamin, 253, 303, 304, 306 Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), 115, 116 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), 206, 207, 732–733 Office of Indian Affairs (OIA), 151, 166, 167–168, 171, 426, 666, 731, 761 and Alaska, 195 authority of, 170 and education, 182 See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Lea, Luke; Parker, Ely S. The Office of Indian Affairs (Schmeckebier), 33 Office of Indian Education Programs, 190 Ogden, Abraham, 289 Ogden Land Company, 247 Ogima Kegido, 329, 330 Oglala Sioux, 106, 171, 255–257, 704, 705 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO), 705 Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, 704 OHA. See Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ohio, 19 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Ohio Indians, 426–427 Ohio Valley treaties in, 89 Ohnaweio (Goodstream), Chief, 289 OIA. See Office of Indian Affairs Oil, 140 in Alaska, 195, 196, 197 See also Natural resources Ojibwe (Ojibwa, Ojibway), 29, 148, 235, 238, 239, 248–249, 278, 412, 673–674, 721–722 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 375–376

www.abc-clio.com

Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 377 Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 380–381 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 388–389 and fishing rights, 155, 156 and gathering rights, 158–159 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 431–432 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 335 Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850, 334–335, 495–498 and Sandy Lake, 433 Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), 363 Oklahoma, 28, 102, 140–141, 170, 937 and confederate treaties, 104 jurisdiction in, 168–169 See also Indian Territory Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 681 Olaya, Hugo, 851–852 Old Briton, 862–863 Old Crow, 404 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 404–405 Old Northwest, 19, 20, 22, 23, 55, 56 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 63, 113, 713–714, 715 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and sovereignty, 948 Olympia, Treaty of, 227 Omaha, 32, 100, 104, 226 and jurisdiction, 161 Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1854, 338–339

ABC-CLIO

I-31

Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 1865, 355–356 Omaha Reservation, 161 Omaha Tribal Council, 161 Omaha World-Herald, 161 One Bull, 897 the One that Has No Name (Cha-sawa-ne-che), 304 the One That Is Used as a Shielf (Wah-hah-chunk-i-ahpee), 358 the One Who Walks against the Others (J-a-pu), 303 Oneida, 13, 23, 53, 69, 76, 278, 305 and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, 1838, 329 See also Six Nations Onkpahpah. See Hunkapapa Onondaga, 51, 278. See also Six Nations Ontario, 213, 216 Ontonagon, 341 Oohulookee, 297 Oolitiskee, 297 Oowatata, 297 Oowatie, Buck. See Boudinot, Elias Opata, 410 Opechancanough, 863–864, 880 Operation Head Start, 114 Opitchapam, 863 Opothleholo, 313, 864–865 Oral agreements, 6 Oral cultures, 149 Oral promise, 10–11 Oral tradition, 135 “Order for Establishing Communication and Trade with the Esquimaux Savages on the Coast of Labrador,” 279 Oregon, 199–200, 225 jurisdiction in, 172 treaty of, 225 See also Pacific Northwest Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 45 Oregon Donation Act, 97 Oregon Game Commission, 152 Oregon Question, 28, 29 Oregon Territory, 57, 96–97 and unratified treaties, 97–99 See also Pacific Northwest Oregon Trail, 254

1-800-368-6868

I-32

Index

Organic Act, 195, 685, 686 Oriskany, Battle of, 641 Orme Dam, 136 Orrick, William, 154, 158, 707 Osage, 7, 18, 20, 21–22, 30, 104, 136, 252, 413–414 and confederate treaty, 104–105 and oil, 140 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Osage, November 10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Osage, September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Osage, September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Osage, August 21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Osage, September 19, 1865, 357 Osage Reservation, 140 Osaw Wauban, 330 Osceola, 804, 811, 866–867 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835 OSCRO. See Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization Oshaga, 341 Oshawwawno, Chief, 347 Oshkosh, 867–868 O’Sullivan, John Louis, 55 Oswegatchie, 75 Otermín, Antonio, 434 Otoe (Oto), 25, 30, 100, 226, 252, 253 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Ottawa (Odawa), 17, 51, 71, 72, 100, 104, 235, 278, 412 and fishing rights, 155, 156 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Ourada, Patricia, 867 Ouray, 868–869 Ousa Mequin (Massasoit), 854–855 Outchequaka, 291 Overland Mail Route, 269 Oweneco, 907 Owl, 914 Pa (the Elk), 298 Paca Rinqua, 301 Pacakinqua, 300 Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, 155 Pacific Northwest, 24, 25 fishing rights in, 147–150, 150–155 gathering rights in, 147–150, 159 hunting rights in, 147–150, 150–155 treaties in, 225–228, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 See also Oregon Territory; Washington Territory Pacific Railroad Act, 29 Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, 41 Packs a Knife (Istowun-eh’pata), 785 Pacta sunt servanda, 50, 58 Pad-a-ga-he (Fire Chief), 356 Page, John, 362 Pah-sal-sa (Auicara), 304 Pah-Siss, 323 Paiute, 35, 106, 116, 230 table 2 Palliser, Sir Hugh, 279–280 Palmer, Joel, 149, 226, 227, 229 table 1, 230 table 2, 338, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 409–410 Palmer, Luther R., 365 Palouse, 344–345, 409–410 Pancoast, Henry, 826 Pani, 252 Panton, Leslie and Company, 17 Papago, 273 Papal authority, 49 Papal bulls, 50 Paris, Treaty of, 71, 137, 237, 245, 260, 279, 638, 645, 647, 649, 651, 954. See also Revolutionary War (U.S.) Parke, Benjamin, 296, 299, 300, 301 Parker, Arthur C. (Gawaso Wanneh), 816, 884, 886 Parker, Cynthia Ann, 871 Parker, Eli, 31 Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh, Donehogä’wa), 59, 184,

1-800-368-6868

Index 272, 349, 362, 363, 666, 816, 869–870 Parker, Quanah, 838, 870–872 Parker, William, 870 Parliament of Canada, 215 Parliament of United Kingdom, 214 PARR. See Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources Parris, Albion K., 333 Parrish, Jasper, 886 Parsons, Samuel H., 286 Partisan Discoverer (Sheterahiate), 298 Pasamaquoddy (Passamaquoddy), 70, 116, 211, 247 Pashepaho, 291 Passamaquoddy. See Pasamaquoddy Passamaquoddy v. Morton, 717 Patent Office, 29 Path Killer, 291 Patterson, J. P., 754 Patterson, John, 744 Pauktuutit, 938 Paulet, Lord George, 200, 201, 203 Paulette case (aka Caveat case), 392 Pauquia (Montour), 292 Paw-pee, 320 Paw-tisse, 319 Pawnee, 30, 41, 253, 269 and education, 182 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, September 30, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9, 1833, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Treaty with the Pawnee, September 24, 1857, 349 Pawnee Loup, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Pawnee Marhar, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Pawnee Republic Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298

www.abc-clio.com

Pawnee Republican, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Payne’s Landing, Treaty of, 264, 653, 935 Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, 352 Peace, 13, 19, 40 Peace, Treaty of, 55, 56 Peace and Amity, Treaty of, 268 Peace and friendship treaties, 95, 641–642 in Canada, 210–212 Peace Commission, 25, 58–59, 271 Peace Policy, 30 and education, 184–185, 189 Peacock, 323 Pearl Harbor, 203, 232 Peigan (Piegan), 101, 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Pelecheah, 300, 301 Pem-ach-wung, Chief, 352 Pembina Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Penayseewabee, 330 Pend d’Oreille, 99, 227 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Penn, Margareet, 873 Penn, William, 276, 872–874 Penn, William, Sr., 873 Penobscot, 70, 116, 211, 247 Pensacola, Treaty of, 52 Pension Office, 29 People of the Caribou. See Gwich’in People v. Chosa, 155–156 People v. LeBlanc, 156, 710–711 Peoria, 100 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365

ABC-CLIO

I-33

Peoria, Baptiste, 365 Pepper, Abel C., 322, 323, 324, 325, 329, 437 Pepys, Samuel, 873 Pequot War, 245 Peralta, Pedro de, 434 Perry, James, 327 Petaheick (Good Chief), 298 Peters, Richard, 282, 765–766 Peters, Zeba T., 334 Petroleum leases, 43 Peyote, 173, 175 Phagen, Major, 316 Phelps, Oliver, 290 Philippines, 202 Phillips, Ellis, 333 Phillips, William A., 419 Piankashaw (Piankeshaw), 16, 72, 79 Agreement with the Piankeshaw, January 3, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Piankashaw, December 30, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Pickens, Andrew, 286, 290 Pickens, Edmund, 337, 346, 362 Pickering, Timothy, 74, 75, 287, 289 Pickering Treaty, 287 Picolata, Treaty of, 656 Picotte, Charles F., 349 Pictou, Mary Ellen, 742 Piegan. See Peigan Pierce, Franklin, 809, 927 Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, 702 Pike, Albert, 103, 418, 737, 781, 874–876, 891 Pike, Zebulon M., 292 Pilcher, Joshua, 325, 328

1-800-368-6868

I-34

Index

Pillager Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Pima, 272, 273 Pina Quahah (Washakie), 373–374, 907–909 Pine Ridge Reservation, 36, 168, 171, 704 Pine Tree Treaty, 91 Piomingo, 286 the Pipe, 424 Pipe, Captain, 309 Pipe, Eli, 309 Pipeline, trans-Alaska, 197 Pishake, 341 Pisquouse, 344–345 Pitchlynn, John, 876 Pitchlynn, Peter (Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee; Snapping Turtle), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Pito-kanow-apiwin (Poundmaker), 785 Plains Apache, 677–678. See also Apache Plains Cree, 240, 382. See also Cree Plains Indians and Fort Laramie, 422, 423 Plains Ojibwa, 382. See also Ojibwa Plaisted, William, 717 Plan of 1764, 282 Plan of Union, 954 Plenary power, 28, 36, 43–44, 109, 114, 118, 120, 126–127, 169, 671, 677–678, 942–943 and government-to-government relationship, 930, 931 and trust responsibility, 957 the Plum (Po-ko-mah), 328 Plymouth Company, 76 Po-ko-mah (the Plum), 328 Pocahontas, 863–864, 879 Pohlik Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Poinsett, Joel R., 328 Point Elliott, 226, 230 table 2 treaty at, 99

www.abc-clio.com

Point No Point Treaty, 149, 226, 230 table 2 Pokagon, Leopold. See Pokagun Pokagun (Leopold Pokagon; Sakekwinik), 318, 413, 877–878 Police force, Indian, 59 Political structure, 135 Polk, James K., 770, 870 Pomo, 53, 228 Ponca, 104 Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 1865, 356 Pontiac, 435, 437, 640 Pontiac (Obwandiyag), 878–879 Pontiac’s Rebellion, 281–282 Pontiac’s Revolt, 245 Pontiac’s War of 1763, 639 Pontotoc, Treaty of, 264 Poor Bear, 367 Pope, John, 25 Port Madison Reservation, 713 Port Orford, 229 table 1 Porter, George B., 315, 316 Portugal, 49 Posey, Thomas, 298 Postage Stamp Province, 665 Potawatomi, 20, 23, 30, 51, 72, 79, 90, 235, 244, 247, 248, 278, 412–413, 444 and Fort Harrison, 421 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 and St. Joseph, 436–437 and St. Louis, 438 and Tippecanoe River, 439–441 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 16, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1828, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 20, 1832, 313–314 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 26, 1832, 314–315 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 10, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 16, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 17, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 24, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 26, 1836, 322 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, April 11, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, April 22, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, August 5, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1836, 324–325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 23, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, June 5 and 17, 1846, 332–333 Treaty with the Potawatomi, November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 27, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 and Vincennes, 442 Potlatch, 668 Poundmaker (Pito-kanow-apiwin), 785 Poverty, 117 in Alaska, 199 Powell, Ludwell E., 333 Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), 235, 863–864, 879–880 Powles, Henry, 329 Powley, Roddy, 720 Powley, Steve, 720, 940 Pownall, Thomas, 823 Prairie du Chien treaty history of, 430–432 Treaty of, 430–431 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825 Pratt, John G., 363 Pratt, Richard Henry, 179, 185–186, 189, 851, 880–882. See also Carlisle Indian School Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada), 641–642 Pre-Dorset, 937 Preemption rights, 21, 23 Preloznik, Joseph, 792 Price, H., 385 Prince Edward Island, 211, 216 Prior appropriation system, 143, 144–145 Priority date, and water rights, 143 Prisoner return, 14 Private ownership. See Land ownership The Problem of Indian Administration, 189, 679. See also Meriam Report “Proclamation to Bring About Friendly Intercourse with Esquimaux Indians,” 279 Proctor, Henry, 649

www.abc-clio.com

Progressive education movement, 189 the Prophet. See Shawnee Prophet Prophetstown, 427, 440, 443–444, 646–647 Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources (PARR), 157, 722 Provencher, J. A. N., 377 Prucha, Francis Paul, 21, 190 Prudhoe Bay, 195, 197 Public Law 83-280, 111–112 Public Law 99-398, 141 Public Law 103-150 Public Law 280, 35, 120, 172–173, 175, 684–685, 686, 948, 952–953. See also Termination Public Law 726. See Indian Claims Commission Act Public schools, 189–190. See also Schools Pueblo, 24, 29, 41, 116, 162, 272, 410 and jurisdiction, 169 and Santa Fe, 433–434 and water rights, 143 Puffing Eyes (Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha), 358 Puget Sound, 150, 152, 153, 154, 427–428 Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos, 153 Pushee Paho, 301 Pushmataha, 882–883 Putnam, Rufus, 745 Puyallup, 63, 99, 226 and fishing rights, 152–154 and jurisdiction, 173 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Puyallup River, 152 Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977, 173, 711–712 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968, 45, 153, 695–696, 711 Puyallup Trilogy, 153 Pye, Abram, 334 Quakerism, 184, 872–874 Quapaw, 104, 268, 417, 439 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, 1818, 298

ABC-CLIO

I-35

Treaty with the Quapaw, November 15, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Qu’Appelle Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 4, September 15, 1874 Quash Quammee (Quashquame), 291, 302 Quash-quaw, 323 Quashquame. See Quash Quammee Quatie, 891 Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day), 355, 365 Quebec, 211, 215, 216 Quebec Agreement, 236 Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), 215, 395, 397 The Queen v. Drybones, 688 Queets, 99 Qui-nai-elt (Quinaielt) Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Qui-we-shen-shish, 365 Quil-leh-ute. See Quileute Quil-si-eton, 342 Quileute (Quil-leh-ute), 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Quillequeoqua, 229 table 1 Quinaielt. See Qui-nai-elt Quinalt. See Quinault Quinault (Quinalt), 99, 152, 154, 226–227, 230 table 2 Quinney, Augustin E., 334 Quixiachigiate, 334 Quotequeskee, 291 R. v. Côté, 642 R. v. Gladstone, 728, 729 R. v. Marshall, 641, 720 R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., 728 R. v. Sioui, 638, 641 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 728–729 Racer (Ronaess), 298 Racism, 85, 187 Rafeedie, Edward, 159 Railroads, 96 Ramah Navajo Chapter, 43 Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 114 Ramsey, Alexander, 354, 433, 848

1-800-368-6868

I-36

Index

Rancherias, 24 Rapids of the Miami, 21 Rarnleshare (Chief Man), 298 the Rat (Kondiaronk), 278 Rattling Blanket Woman, 784 Rawlins, John, 870 Rawson, Rawson W., 745 Ray, James Brown, 307 RCMP. See Royal Canadian Mounted Police Reagan, Ronald, 723 Reciprocity, Treaty of, 231 table 4, 232 Reconstruction, 30, 105–107, 202, 937. See also U.S. Civil War Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 Red Bear, Chief, 354 Red Bird War of 1827, 653 Red Cloud, Chief, 107, 256, 719, 883–884 Red Fort, 302 Red Jacket (Sagoyewatha), 75, 76, 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, 814, 815, 869–870, 884–886 Red Lake Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Red Lake Reservation, 112, 684 Red Plume, Chief, 253–254 Red Power, 691, 953 Red Tipi, 892 Reed, Henry W., 358, 359, 360, 364 Reed Stanley, 685 Reeves, Benjamin, 304, 413 Regina v. Bernard, 219 Regina v. Marshall, 218–219 Regina v. Powley, 216 Regina v. White and Bob, 219, 642 Regional corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Rehnquist, William, 45, 719 Religion, 173, 174–175 and education, 179–182 in Hawaii, 200 and land ownership, 144 See also Missionaries Relocation, 8, 24, 35, 172, 689–690 and Alaska, 195

www.abc-clio.com

See also Indian removal Removal. See Indian removal Rencontre, Zephyr, 349 Reorganization, 170–171 Reorganization Act, 682 Repatriation, 175, 176 Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 921 Republican Party, 29 Reservation system, 29, 95–96, 97, 327, 341, 699, 931–932 in Alaska, 198, 199 See also Reservations Reservation(s), 8, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31–32, 95–96, 236 in Alaska, 195–197, 198–199 definition of, 133 and jurisdiction, 172–173 as payment for lands, 137–138 police, 168 See also Executive Order Reservations; General Allotment Act; individual reservations; Reservation system Reserved rights, 40, 62, 133, 155, 156 regulation of, 147–150 See also Fishing rights; Gathering rights; Hunting rights Reserved Rights Doctrine, 138, 143–145, 151, 686, 695, 943–944 Reserves, 95. See also Reservations Resolution of 1871, 166 Restoration, 138–139 Restoration Acts, 116 Returning Sky (Kee-way-gee-zhig), 324 Revenue sharing agreements, 6 Revolutionary War (U.S.), 6, 11, 13–14, 27, 55, 137, 163, 245, 246, 261, 645, 647, 649 and Canada, 212–214 and Royal Proclamation of 1763, 639 treaties during, 18–19, 69–70, 259–260 and treaties of alliance, 11 See also Paris, Treaty of Reynolds, John, 313, 798 Rhea, John, 297 Rice, Harold “Freddy,” 732 Rice, Henry M., 333, 353 Rice v. Cayetano, 207, 732–733 Richardson, John, 885 Richardville, John B., 330 Richardville, Thomas, 365

ABC-CLIO

Riddle, Frank, 768 Ridge, John Rollin (Chees-quat-alaw-ny; Yellow Bird), 886–887 Ridge, John (Skah-tle-loh-skee), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 430, 758, 887, 888, 909 Ridge, Major (Kah-nung-da-tla-geh), 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321, 322, 333, 430, 887, 888, 909 Ridge, Walter, 888 Riel, Louis, 665, 785, 803, 889–890, 939–940 Right of conquest, 15, 96, 100, 652, 944–945, 946, 957 Right of occupancy/right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657, 685, 945–946 Right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657, 685, 945–946 Riley, James, 362 Ritchie, Roland, 701 Rituals, 39, 254–255 River People (Columbia River Indians), 150–152, 155, 227, 414–416 Robertson, James, 291, 292 Robinson, Alexander, 319, 413 Robinson, William Benjamin, 334–335 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 214, 239, 335, 435, 642 Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850, 214, 239, 334–335, 435, 642 treaty document, 495–498 Roche de Boeuf Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Rock-a-to-wha, 351 Roe Cloud, Henry, 189 Roe-nu-nas, 312 Rogers, John, 308, 316 Rogue River, 99, 226, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes, September 8, 1853, 338 Treaty of, 97–98

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, November 15, 1854, 342 Roland, Gilbert, 802 Ronaess (Racer), 298 Ronesass (Honas), 298 Ronioness (Joseph), 298 Roosevelt, Franklin, 34, 170, 189, 934 and Collier, John, 780, 923 Roosevelt, Theodore, 778, 824, 872 and Geronimo, 813 and Harjo, Chitto, 818 Rosebud Reservation, 139 Ross, Alexander, 414 Ross, Edmund G., 800 Ross, John, Chief, 16, 88–89, 263, 296, 299, 320, 321, 322, 333, 363, 654, 758, 870, 887, 890–891, 910 Ross, William W., 352 Round Valley Reservation, 661 Rowland, Bill, 802 Roy, Francis, 349 Roy v. United States, 337 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), 939 Royal Charter of 1670, 715 Royal Proclamation of 1763, 69, 211, 212, 213, 235, 236, 239, 281, 282, 375, 403, 404, 638–640, 642, 674, 702 Runaways, and education, 186–187 Rupert’s Land, 664, 665, 715 Russell, William, 421 Russia, 229, 685, 698 and Alaska, 195 and treaty negotiation, 53 Rusty (Mon-sai-raa), 294 Ryan, James, 710–711 Ryan, W. Carson, Jr., 189 Sa-cher-i-ton, 342 Sa-heh-wamish. See Sahewamish Sa-ka-pa (son of Quash-qua-mi), 328 Saa-Hajo (Davy), 313 Saalequun, 238 Saanich, 238 Sac. See Sauk Sacred objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Sacred sites, 174, 946–947. See also Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Sacred objects

www.abc-clio.com

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 117 Saginaw Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Sagoyewatha (Red Jacket), 75, 76, 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, 814, 815, 869–870, 884–886 Sah-ku-méhu Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sahaptin (Sahaptian), 227, 414–415 Sahewamish (Sa-heh-wamish), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Sahtu Dene, 240, 392, 400 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 See also Dene Sai-Nell Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-KiAs, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Sakekwinik (Leopold Pokagun), 318, 413, 877–878 Salmonscam, 154 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Saluskin, Noah James, 159 Sam, Chief, 338 Sam-áhmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Samoa, 199 San Carlos Apache, 116 San Carlos Reservation, 268 San Luis Rey Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 Sanborn, John, 256, 269, 271, 358, 366, 367, 369, 370 Sand Creek Massacre, 104, 106, 271 site return, 733 See also Chivington, John Milton Sanderson, Electa Allen, 787, 788 Sandoval, Chief, 267

ABC-CLIO

I-37

Sands (Ok-tars-sars-harjov), 363 Sandusky Seneca treaty, 248 Sandy Lake treaty history of, 433 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842 Sans Arcs Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 809 Santa Fe treaty history of, 433–434 See also Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 Santee Dakota Reservation, 175 Santee Sioux, 32 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Santee war, 104 Santiam Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Santiam Molala, 229 table 1 Sapier, Noel, 742 Sar-cox-ie, 351 Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Sargeant, John, 744 Sasr-sarp-kin, 385 Sassacus, 907 Satank (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, 896–897 Satanta (Set’ainte, Settainti; White Bear), 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Satiacum, Robert, 152, 707 Sau-tabe-say, 324 Sauk (Sac), 17, 30, 72, 100, 103, 244, 278, 412 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, 296

1-800-368-6868

I-38

Index

Sauk (Sac) (cont.) Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291, 456–459 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan and Ontario) treaty history of, 434–436 See also Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850; Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842; Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855 Saulteaux, 238 Saw-wur-bon, 329

www.abc-clio.com

SCAN. See Student Council of American Natives Scar Face (Washakie), 373–374, 907–909 Scarfaced Charley, 768 Schermerhorn, John, 315, 316, 321 Schmeckebier, Laurence F., 33 Schmitz, Darld, 704 Schonchin John, Chief, 768 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 323, 329, 429, 771, 893–894 Schools, 25, 179–190, 270. See also Boarding schools; Carlisle Indian School; Education; Public schools Schuyler, Philip, 640 Schweabe, 895 Scoton, 98, 99, 230 table 2, 342 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Scott, Duncan Campbell, 796 Scott, Thomas, 889, 890, 939, 940 Scott, Winfield, 89, 313, 321–322, 657, 798, 891 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 811 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835, 836 Scott’s River Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Scoutash, 298 Screaming Above (Mamande), 897 SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Act Se-ap-cat, 345 Se-se-ah-kee, 352 Sea Wolf (La-mee-pris-jeau), 294 Seath’tl (Seattle), 63, 894–896 Seaton, Fred, 911 Seattle (Seath’tl), 63, 894–896 Sechelt Indian Band SelfGovernment Act, 726 Second Great Awakening, 181 Second Riel Rebellion, 939–940 Second Seminole War, 88, 165, 264, 653 Segui, Bernard, 302 Segulliak, 279 Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 115 Self-determination, 8, 35–36, 36, 127, 173, 174, 691, 697–698, 709–710, 734, 932 in Alaska, 198 and statutes, 114–116 vs. dependency, 144

ABC-CLIO

Self-Government Agreements (Canada), 726–727 Selkirk, 403 Selkirk, Earl of, 238 Selkirt treaty, 238 Selling rights, 135 Sells, Elijah, 357, 362, 363 Seminole, 7, 23, 30, 32, 419 and addenda treaty, 102–103 and confederate treaty, 103–104 and gaming, 175, 176 and purchase of Hard Rock Café, 735 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 87–88, 264 and termination, 172 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, 1832, 313, 478–480 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, 1866, 362, 522–527 See also Five Civilized Tribes Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 123 Seminole War of 1817—1818, 653 Senate Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, 197 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 127 Senate Committee on Public Lands, 134 Seneca, 21, 23, 44, 72, 76, 100, 104, 236, 243, 244, 247, 248, 278 Agreement with the Seneca, September 15, 1797, 289 Agreement with the Seneca, September 3, 1823, 302 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, 1842, 330

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Seneca— Tonawand Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 See also Six Nations Seneca Nation v. U.S., 44 Seneca Reservation, 329 Seneca Steel, 312 Sensenbrenner, Frank, 157 Sequasson, 767 Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 174 Sergeant, John, 654 Service Monographs of the United States Government, 33–34 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), 27, 34 Sesquaressura, Chief, 282 Set’ainte, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Setangya (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, 896–897 Settainti, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Settlement illegal, 16–17 Indian, 19, 25 non-Indian, 13, 15, 24, 25, 110 Seven Fires of Canada, 238 Seven Major Crimes Act, 59 Seven Nations of Canada, 75–76, 236, 238 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289 Seven Years’ War. See French and Indian War Seventh Cavalry, 271 Severalty Act. General Allotment Act Seward, William, 202, 870 Sganyadí:yoh (Handsome Lake), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Sha-da-na-ge (Yellow Smoke), 356 Sha-ho-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Shanks, Isaac, 349 Shannon, Peter C., 385

www.abc-clio.com

Shasta (Chasta), 98, 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Shave-Head, 351 Shaw-gwok-skuk, 325 Shawano, 335 Shawnee, 21, 25, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 79, 100, 104, 244, 245, 246, 268, 282, 444 and jurisdiction, 166 and St. Louis, 438 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Shawnee, January 31, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Shawnee, November 7, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 and Vincennes, 442 Shawnee Prophet (the Prophet; Tenskwatawa, Tensquatawa), 80, 84, 245, 247, 421, 427, 439–440, 442, 443–444, 646, 647, 648, 649, 904, 905 Shawun Epenaysee, 330

ABC-CLIO

I-39

She-aw-ke-pee, 323 Shebbeare, John, 766 Sheegunageezhig, 330 Sheheke, Chief, 847 Shelby, Isaac, 299 Sheridan, Phil, 898 Sherman, Roger, 69 Sherman, William Tecumseh, 106, 267, 271, 369, 370, 373, 686, 749 and Satanta, 892, 893 and Sitting Bear, 897 Shernakitare (First in the War Party), 298 Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer), 298 Shi-a-wa (John Solomon), 312 Shinguakouce (pseud. Augustin Bart), 335 Shipley, David, 799 Ships, 49 Sho-e-mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we-wahca-to-we (the Wolf with the High Back), Chief, 303 Shob-osk-kunk, 365 S’Homamais. See Squaxin Shon-kah-we-to-ko (the Fool Dog), 359 Short Stay (Aanti), 897 Shoshone-Bannock, 107, 150 Shoshone (Shoshnee), 101, 104, 106, 107, 227–228, 252, 253 and jurisdiction, 175 Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Goship, October 12, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374, 556–559 Shoshone v. U.S., 44 Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, 329 Shu-kah-bi (Heavy Clouds), 349 Shubenaccadie, 237 Shyik, 345 Si-Yan-Te Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc., March 1851, 231 table 3 Sibley, George C., 304, 413

1-800-368-6868

I-40

Index

Sibley, H. H., 358, 359, 360 Sibley, Henry, 848 Sibley, Solomon, 301 Sichangu Lakota, 166 Siksika (Blackfeet), 383 Siletz Reservation, 226 Silver Brooch, 367 Silver mining, 31, 139. See also Natural resources Simtustus, 148 Sioune Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Sioux, 24, 25, 39, 51, 64, 91–92, 101, 104, 107, 236, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255–257, 271, 719, 722–723 and addenda treaty, 103 agreement with, 31 Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, October 17, 1822, to January 3, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Amended Agreement with the Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 and education, 179 and Fort Laramie, 423 and jurisdiction, 168 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and reorganization, 171 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux, September 23, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Sioux, September 10, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30, 1836, 325

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sioux, September 29, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858, 350 Treaty with the Sioux— Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–360 Treaty with the Sioux—TwoKettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux— Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 See also Dakota; Lakota; Nakota Sioux Reservation, 32, 256 Sioux Valley First Nation, 216 SIPI. See Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Sis-see-yaw, 319

ABC-CLIO

Sisseton Sioux, 100 agreement with, 102 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Sitting Bear (Satank, Setangya), 367, 892, 896–897 Sitting Bull, 719, 784, 785, 897–899, 901 Sitting in the Saddle (Tauankia), 851 The Six Books of the Commonwealth (Bodin), 49 Six Nations, 15, 19, 51, 52, 55, 70, 72, 73, 74–75, 644 and Revolutionary War, 163–164 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768, 281–283 Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784, 285 Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794, 287–288, 454–456 See also Cayuga; Iroquois; Mohawk; Oneida; Onondaga; Seneca; Tuscarora Six Nations Reserve, 239 Sk-táh-le-jum Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sk-táhlmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Skágit Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Skah-tle-loh-skee (John Ridge), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 430, 758, 887, 888, 909 Skai-wha-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343

1-800-368-6868

Index Skaniadario (Handsome Lake), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Skannowa, John, 149 Skimmy (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Skin-cheesh, 325 Skin-pah, 345 SKINS. See Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations S’Klallam Treaty with the S’Klallam, January 26, 1855, 343 Skokomish, 154 Skope-áhmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sky, George, 349 Sladen, Joseph, 778 Slavery, 29–30, 103 Slikatat, 344–345 Smalh-kamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Small Cloud Spicer, 312 Smallpox, 253, 270. See also European diseases Smith, Daniel, 291, 292 Smith, Edmund Kirby, 106 Smith, Edward P., 921 Smith, Frederick, 282 Smith, Henry, 895, 896 Smith, James, 363, 376 Smith, John, 880 Smith, McKee A., 696 Smoking of the pipe, 255 Snake, 101, 252, 357 Treaty with the Snake, August 12, 1865, 356–357 Snapping Turtle (Peter Pitchlynn), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Snoquálmoo Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Snow, George C., 365 Snyder Act, 709 Soap, Charlie, 852 Soda Springs treaty, 228 Sohappy, David, Sr., 149, 152, 154, 415, 696–697, 899–900 Sohappy, Richard, 696–697 Sohappy/Oregon ruling, 696–697 Sohappy v. Smith, 153, 696–697 Sokoki Abenaki, 75 Solomon, John (Shi-a-wa), 312 Songhees, 238 Sooke, 238 Sos’heowa, 816

www.abc-clio.com

Sounsosee, Lewis, 339 Sour Much, 291 Souter, David, 723 the South Indian removal in, 86–89 treaties in, 77–79 South America, 51 South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 46, 931 South Slave Métis Tribal Council, 216 Southeast, treaties in, 259–265 Southern plains, treaties in, 267–273 Southwest, treaties in, 267–273 Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), 190 Sovereignty, 212–213, 947–948 in Alaska, 199 in Canada, 177 and European aggression, 162–163 French, 49 and government-to-government relationship, 930 in Hawaii, 203, 207 and land ownership, 135–136 and treaties, signing of, 162–163 tribal, 5, 8, 39, 40, 112–114 See also Jurisdiction Spain, 6, 13, 28, 49, 56, 212–213 and California, 228 and Florida, 20, 77, 79, 85 and Hawaii, 229 and Mexico, 53 and Pueblos, 162 treaties with, 267, 268 and treaty negotiation, 50, 52 Speaker (Aampahaa), 294 Special Message on Indian Affairs (Nixon), 115 Specific Claims Branch, 949 Specific claims (Canada), 216, 235, 236, 948–950 Specific Claims Resolution Act Bill C-6, 949–950 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs (Jefferson), 252–253 Spence, Wishart, 702 Spencer, Ambrose, 330 Spencer Academy, 418 Spicer, George, 365 Spo-tee, 325 Spoils system, 272 Spokane Reservation, 227 Spotted Tail, 166–167, 179, 669, 900–901 Spring, Jesse, 349

ABC-CLIO

I-41

Spring Frog, 297 Squanto (Tisquantum), 854 Squatters, 17 Squawskin. See Squaxin Squaxin Island, 154 Squaxin (S’Homamais, Squawskin, Squaxon), 99 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Squaxon. See Squaxin Squiaitl (Squi-aitl), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Squin-áh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 673–674, 702 St. Clair, Arthur, 73–74, 245, 286, 420, 644, 745, 839, 849, 902–903, 913 St. Croix, 157 St. Francis, 75 St. John, 237 St. Joseph (Michigan) treaty history of, 436–437 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833; Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827; Treaty with the Potawatome, September 20, 1828 St. Louis (Missouri) treaty history of, 437–439 Treaty of, 295, 296 See also Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804 St. Regis, 75, 638 St. Regis Reservation, 75 St-káh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 STA-W. See Stop Treaty AbuseWisconsin Stambaugh, Samuel C., 311 Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi), 829–830, 903–904, 905, 906

1-800-368-6868

I-42

Index

Standing Buffalo (Tah-ton-ga-nuzzhe), 349, 356 Standing Hawk (Gra-ta-mah-zhe), 356 Standing Holy, 899 Stanley, H. M., 367 Stanwix, General, 424 Stapler, Mary Brian, 891 State of Michigan v. William Jondreau, 156 State of Washington v. Miller, 159 State-recognized tribes, 950–951. See also Federally recognized tribes; Nonrecognized tribes State v. Alexis, 151 State v. Keezer, 158 State v. Missionaries, 655 State v. Morrin, 249 State v. Towessnute, 151 State v. Wallahee, 151 Statehood, in Alaska, 195, 196 States, and treaty making, 14 States’ rights, and Indian removal, 85–86 Statute of Westminster, 51, 214 Statutes, 27, 49, 109–112, 126–127 ambiguity in, 41–43 and self-determination, 114–116 and tribal rights, 112–114 See also Treaties; individual statutes Steck, M., 354 Steele, James, 269, 358 Stehchass, 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Steilacoom, 99 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Stephenson, Benjamin, 300 Stevens, Isaac, 25, 42, 149, 226–227, 230 table 2, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 409–410, 895 and Medicine Creek, 427, 428 Stevens, Justice John, 711 Stevens, John L., 204, 205 Stevens, John (Passamaquoddy leader), 717 Stevens treaty, 137 Stewart, Potter, 714 Stockbridge, 315

www.abc-clio.com

and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, November 24, 1848, 334 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Stoke Commission, 936 Stokes, Montfort, 315, 316, 320, 327, 936 Sto:lo, 728 Stoluck-whá-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Stone, Ely, 870 Stone, William Leete, 885, 886 Stone Fort Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 1 Stoney, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Stop Gill Netting, 156 Stop Treaty Abuse, 157, 722 Storm, 351 Story, Joseph, 946 Straits Salish, 147 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 113 Street, Eliza M., 332 Strong Walker (Gish-tah-wah-gu), 349, 356 Stuart, John, 69, 282 Stuart, Robert, 331 Student Council of American Natives (SCAN), 690 Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations (SKINS), 690 Suárez, Francisco, 50 Sublette, William, 422 Subsistence rights, 147–150 Sugar industry, in Hawaii, 201–202, 203, 204, 206 Sullivan, General, 288 Sullivan, John, 641 Sumner, Charles, 788 Sumner, E. V., 337 Sun dance, 668 the Sun Fish (Au-ni-mo-ni), 328 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293

ABC-CLIO

Supremacy clause (of the Constitution), 28, 64, 154, 943, 951–952 Suquamish (Suquámish), 16, 63, 99, 713–714, 715 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Surplus lands, 32, 33, 96–97 Survival of American Indians Association, 152 Susquehannas, 243 Sutter, John, 228, 660 Swamp, Adam, 329 Swampy Cree, 375–376, 380–381, 382. See also Cree Swan Creek Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Swan (Wa-pan-gia), 294 Swayne, Noah, 667 Sweden, 162 Sweet Medicine, 754 Swegatchy, Treaty of, 641–642 Swim v. Bergland, 42, 43 Swimmer, Ross O., 852 Swin-á-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sykes, Thomas B., 351 Symbolic goods, 135 Ta-su (White Cow), 356 Ta-ton-ca-pa (Buffalo Head), Chief, 303 Ta-wa-ka-ro (Tah-wa-carro) Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Taa’-wonyas (Awl Breaker), 814 Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the Yukon, 727 Tabequache (Tabaquache, Tabeguache), 272 Treaty with the Utah— Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354 Table Rock Reservation, 98 Taches Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Taghee, 372, 374

1-800-368-6868

Index Tagustiskee, 291 Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), 304 Tah-ra-kee, 352 Tah-ro-hon, 328 Tah-ton-ga-nuz-zhe (Tah-tungahnushi; Standing Buffalo), 349, 356 Tah-tungah-nushi. See Tah-ton-ganuz-zhe Tah-wa-carro. See Ta-wa-ka-ro Tah-wah-gah-ha (Village Maker), 356 Tahiti, 200 Tahquohee, 430 Takelma, 225, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Takings, and treaty law, 44 Talapuche, 52, 53 Taliaferro, Lawrence, 325, 776 Talking Warrior, 302 Tall Bull, 367, 755 Talton v. Mayes, 715 Tamarois Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, 159 Tan-roo-mee, 343 Tan-tan-ka-has-ka (Long Bull), 360 Taoyateduta (Little Crow), 847–848 Tapeeksin (T’Peek-sin), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Tappan, Lewis, 267 Tappan, Samuel F., 271, 366, 367, 369, 370, 749, 773 Tappaye Pawnee, 319 Taruntne (Between the Logs), 298 Tashtasick, 766 Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), 294 Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), 294 Tauankia (Sitting in the Saddle), 851 Tauromee (John Hat), 365 Tawakoni, 104, 268 Tax revenues, 6, 88 Taylor, E. E. L., 362 Taylor, Edward B., 357, 358, 359, 360 Taylor, Frank, 150, 151 Taylor, Nathaniel G., 30, 106, 230 table 2, 271, 366, 367, 368, 369, 373, 374 Taylor, Richard, 296, 333 Taylor, Zachary, 23, 91, 231 table 4, 324, 421, 433, 730–731, 760, 842

www.abc-clio.com

and Cass, Lewis, 772 and Ojibwe, 341 Te-shaw-gen, 323 Tearekatacaush (the Brave), 298 Technology, 49 Tecumcena (Tecumsena), 300, 301 Tecumseh, 19, 56, 80, 84, 245, 247, 427, 435, 439–440, 442, 443, 444, 645, 649, 650, 790, 849, 850, 904–905 and Aupaumut, 745 and Harrison, William Henry, 820 and Pushmataha, 882 and Thames, Battle of, 647–649 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, 646–647 Tecumsena. See Tecumcena Tee-Hit-Ton, 44 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 44, 173, 657, 685–686, 719 Teetl’it Gwich’in (Tetlit Gwitchin), 400, 403, 404 Tegaya, Chief, 282 Teharagwanegen (Thomas Williams), Chief, 289 Teller, H. M., 385 Teller, James H., 385 Tellico Dam, 174 Ten Bears, 367 Ten Eyck, Anthony, 201 Tene-Angpote. See Kicking Bird Ténéangopte. See Kicking Bird Tenetendi (Eagle Heart), 897 Tenino, 148 Tenskwatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Tensquatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Termination, 8, 24, 34–35, 36, 61, 111–112, 114–115, 116, 119–120, 133, 138–139, 171–172, 173, 189, 196, 197, 198, 682, 683–684, 686–687, 689, 694, 952–953 in Alaska, 196, 198 and Nixon, Richard, 697 See also Deer, Ada E.; House Concurrent Resolution 108; Public Law 280 Termination Act, 141, 694 Termination Resolution, 35 Terry, Alfred, 106, 271, 366, 367, 369, 370, 898 Tesson, Joseph, 352 Tetawiouche (Wearer of Shoes), 298 Tetlit Gwitchin. See Teetl’it Gwich’in Teton Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, 294

ABC-CLIO

I-43

Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Texas, 57, 268 Texas Indian Commission, 950 Texas Republic, 28 Texon Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Teyanhasire, Chief, 282 TFN. See Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut Thadahwahnyeh, 884 Thames, Battle of the, 80, 647–649, 650 Themue, 302 They Are Afraid of Her, 784 They Will Not Be Forgotten (Mikwendaagoziwag), 433 Theyanoguin. See Hendrick Thom, Mel, 152 Thomas, Chief Jacob, 816 Thomas, Clarence, 723 Thomas, Rev. Eleazar, 768 Thompson, Clark W., 353, 355, 356 Thompson, Smith, 40, 57 Thompson, Wiley, 804, 811 Three Fires Confederacy, 235, 236 Three Fires People, 435 Thule, 937 Thunder Rolling in the Mountains. See Joseph, Chief Thur-o-mony, 352 Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes; Inshta Theamba), 905–906 Tibbles, Thomas H., 830, 906 Tigua, 41 Tilghman, James, 282 Tillamook, 97, 229 table 1 Timber rights, 43, 45, 141–142, 157. See also Natural resources Timothy, Chief, 374 Tippecanoe, Battle of, 444, 646–647, 649 Tippecanoe River (Indiana) treaty history of, 439–441 See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809 Tipton, John, 307, 308, 440 Tisquantum (Squanto), 854 Title IX Indian Education, 709 Tiyanoga. See Hendrick Tli Cho, 400 Tlicho (Dogrib; Tli Cho), 727 Tlingit, 44, 196, 198, 685–686 To-hee, 352

1-800-368-6868

I-44

Index

To-I sa’s Brother (We-we-sah), 324–325 Tohono O’odham, 116 Tohopeka. See Horseshoe Bend, Battle of Tolluntuskie, 291 Tolmie, William Fraser, 894–895 Tolowa, 175 Tomack Micco, 313 Tonaskat, 385 Tonawanda Treaty with the Seneca— Tonawanda Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Tonawonda Reservation, 349 Tonkawa, 57, 104 Toochalar, 297 Topinbee, 437, 877 Tordesilla, Treaty of, 49 T’Peek-sin. See Tapeeksin Trade, 15, 17, 27–28, 49, 55, 76–77, 251–252, 253 and Hawaii, 203, 204, 232 See also Fur trade Trade and Intercourse Act, 74, 75–76, 77, 109, 247, 251, 261, 643, 717, 922. See also Annuities Trade debts, 20 Trade routes, 6 Traders, Indian debt to, 20 Trading posts, 76–77 Trail of Broken Treaties, 700–701, 704, 712 Trail of Death, 248 Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 184, 213, 265, 653, 657–658, 661, 936 Trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 Transcontinental railway, 25 Transfer Act, 35 Trapping rights, 41 Traverse des Sioux treaty history of, 441 Treaty of, 255, 441 See also Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewankanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851; Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851 Treaties, 13, 953–954 in colonial America, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137 with competing factions, 11 definition of, 5, 49, 133 and education, 180–181, 182–183, 190 1800—1829, 76-81

www.abc-clio.com

establishment and conduct of Indian relations through, 15–18 force and effect of, 11 between Indian nations, 272–273 as international agreements, 49–64 interpretation of, 149 legacy of, 12 as negotiation process, 10–11. See also Treaty negotiation non-Indian opposition to, 25–26 objectives of, 13, 18–25 permanent language in, 11 policy goals of, 76–81 post-1871, 5–6 post-Civil War, 7 pre-1871, 5 pre-War of 1812, 136 during Revolutionary War (U.S.), 18–19, 69–70, 259–260 and rules of interpretation, 135 signing of, 162–163, 255 in the twentieth century, 61–64 under U.S. Constitution, 73-76 See also Addenda treaties; Confederate treaties; individual treaties listed by location or tribe; Reconstruction treaties; Statutes; Unratified treaties Treaty Commission, 58 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768, 281–283. See also Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty documents, 10–11. See also individual documents Treaty law abrogation and, 44–46 and canons of construction, 41–43 and plenary power, 43–44. See also Plenary power and statute ambiguity, 41–43 and takings, 44 and treaty rights, 39–41 Treaty making end of, 5, 7, 8, 25–26, 41, 58–61, 95, 109 local, 8–9 past and present traditions of, 6–9 post-1960, 8 state, 8–9, 14

ABC-CLIO

and tribal leaders, 9 tribal perspectives on, 9–10 Treaty negotiation, 6, 8, 10–11, 14 authority, 10, 25 in colonial America, 53–58 in Europe, 50–53 fraudulent, 40 methods of, 15–16 stages in, 254–255 Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Treaty of Albany with Iroquois Confederacy and British Crown, September 24, 1664, 211 Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation. See Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Treaty of Treaty of Big Tree. See Big Tree, Treaty of Treaty of Bois Fort. See Bois Fort, Treaty of Treaty of Buffalo Creek. See Buffalo Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Canandaigua. See Canandaigua, Treaty of Treaty of Carey Mission. See Carey Mission, Treaty of Treaty of Caribou Creek. See Caribou Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Chicago. See Chicago, Treaty of Treaty of The Dalles. See The Dalles, Treaty of Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. See Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Doak’s Stand. See Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty of Doaksville. See Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty of Forks of the Wabash. See Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Adams. See Fort Adams, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Bridger. See Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Finney. See Fort Finney, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Harmar. See Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Jackson. See Fort Jackson, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Laramie. See Fort Laramie, Treaty of

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337. See also Fort Laramie, Treaty of Treaty of Fort McIntosh. See Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Pitt. See Fort Pitt, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Stanwix. See Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Wayne. See Fort Wayne, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Wise. See Fort Wise, Treaty of Treaty of Franklin. See Franklin, Treaty of Treaty of Ghent. See Ghent, Treaty of Treaty of Grandpré. See Grandpré, Treaty of Treaty of Greenville. See Greenville, Treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of Treaty of Hard Labor. See Hard Labor, Treaty of Treaty of Hartford. See Hartford, Treaty of Treaty of Holston. See Holston, Treaty of Treaty of Hopewell. See Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty of Indian Springs. See Indian Springs, Treaty of Treaty of La Famine. See La Famine, Treaty of Treaty of Lapwai. See Lapwai, Treaty of Treaty of Medicine Creek. See Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Medicine Lodge. See Medicine Lodge, Treaty of Treaty of Middle Oregon. See Middle Oregon, Treaty of Treaty of Montreal, August 7, 1701, 278–279. See also Montreal, Treaty of Treaty of Mount Dexter. See Mount Dexter, Treaty of Treaty of New Echota. See New Echota, Treaty of Treaty of New York. See New York, Treaty of Treaty of Olympia. See Olympia, Treaty of Treaty of Paris. See Paris, Treaty of

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty of Payne’s Landing. See Payne’s Landing, Treaty of Treaty of Peace. See Peace, Treaty of Treaty of Peace and Amity. See Peace and Amity, Treaty of Treaty of Pensacola. See Pensacola, Treaty of Treaty of Picolata. See Picolata, Treaty of Treaty of Pontotoc. See Pontotoc, Treaty of Treaty of Prairie du Chien. See Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty of Reciprocity. See Reciprocity, Treaty of Treaty of Rogue River. See Rogue River, Treaty of Treaty of St. Louis. See St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty of Tordesilla. See Tordesilla, Treaty of Treaty of Traverse des Sioux. See Traverse des Sioux, Treaty of Treaty of Trois Rivières. See Trois Rivières, Treaty of Treaty of Utrecht. See Utrecht, Treaty of Treaty of Versailles. See Versailles, Treaty of Treaty of Washington. See Washington, Treaty of Treaty of Washington City. See Washington City, Treaty of Treaty of Westphalia. See Westphalia, Treaty of Treaty Party, 23, 88–89, 321, 322 Treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135 Treaty rights, 39–41 interpretation of, 39, 40–43 Treaty sites, 409–444. See also individual treaty sites Treaty substitutes, 27, 133 Treaty Tree, 427 Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Appalachicola, October 11, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352

ABC-CLIO

I-45

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July 18, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Blackfeet, October 17, 1855, 347–348 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–359, 358–360 Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785, 285–286 treaty document, 451–453 See also Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, 287. See also Holston, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794, 287. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2, 1798, 289 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 24, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 25, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Cherokee, September 14, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, February 27, 1819, 299 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835, 320–322 treaty document, 483–491 See also New Echota, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, 363 treaty document, 542–550 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27, 1868, 368–369 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July 6, 1825, 303

1-800-368-6868

I-46

Index

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358 treaty document, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367. See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 24, 1801, 289–290 Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Chickasaw, September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 19, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Chickasaw, August 31, 1830, 310 treaty document, 464–468 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 treaty document, 491–493 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 treaty document, 493–495 Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319. See also Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Chippewa, January 14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 7, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842, 331

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, August 2, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 30, 1854, 340–341 treaty document, 502–507 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, December 17, 1801, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, 1803, 291 Treaty with the Choctaw, November 16, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 24, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820, 301. See also Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825, 302

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830, 310–311 treaty document, 468–476 See also Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327. See also Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362 treaty document, 527–538 Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-Woz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338 treaty document, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Creek, August 7, 1790, 287 Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796, 289 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Creek, October 27, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, August 9, 1814, 294 Treaty with the Creek, January 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Creek, January 8, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Creek, February 12, 1825, 302–303 Treaty with the Creek, January 24, 1826, 306 Treaty with the Creek, November 15, 1827, 307–308 Treaty with the Creek, March 24, 1832, 312–313 treaty document, 476–478

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Creek, February 14, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Creek, November 23, 1838, 329–330 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, 362–363 treaty document, 538–542 Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August 4, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-MaDo, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778, 283–284 treaty document, 449–450 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, 1860, 351 Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1866, 363 Treaty with the Diegunio, January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, September 18, 1823, 302

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Fox, September 14, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, December 1849, 231 table 4, 232 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., April 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, 1815, 296 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Kickapoo, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermillion, September 5, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October 24, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, 1854, 340

ABC-CLIO

I-47

Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366 treaty document, 550–552 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., October 14, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A-Si, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Makah, July 20, 1815, 294–295 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, October 6, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Makah, January 31, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Menominee, March 30, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Menominee, February 8, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee, September 3, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Menominee, October 18, 1848, 333–334 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Menominee, February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Miami, October 6, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Miami, February 11, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Miami, November 6, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Miami, November 28, 1840, 330

1-800-368-6868

I-48

Index

Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1797, 289 Treaty with the Molala, December 21, 1855, 348 Treaty with the Navajo, September, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, 370–372 treaty document, 552–556 Treaty with the New York Indians, January 15, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, 1855, 345 Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, 1863, 353 treaty document, 513–518 Treaty with the Nez Percé, August 13, 1868, 374 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343 treaty document, 507–510 See also Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1854, 338–339 Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 1865, 355–356 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Osage, November 10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Osage, September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Osage, September 25, 1818, 299

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Osage, August 21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Osage, September 19, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, September 30, 1825, 306

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9, 1833, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Treaty with the Pawnee, September 24, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Piankashaw, December 30, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 1865, 356 Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 16, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1828, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 20, 1832, 313–314 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 26, 1832, 314–315 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 10, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 16, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 17, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 26, 1836, 322 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, August 5, 1836, 324

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1836, 324–325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, June 5 and 17, 1846, 332–333 Treaty with the Potawatomi, November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 27, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Quapaw, November 15, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, November 15, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki-As, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291 treaty document, 456–459 See also St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, 1832, 313 treaty document, 478–480 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, 1866, 362 treaty document, 522–527 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, 1842, 330 Treaty with the Seneca—Tonawand Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289. See also Canadian Indian Treaties 1-11 Treaty with the Shawnee, January 31, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Shawnee, November 7, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Goship, October 12, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374

ABC-CLIO

I-49

treaty document, 556–559 See also Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc., March 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Sioux, September 23, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305 treaty document, 459–463 See also Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty with the Sioux, September 10, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sioux, September 29, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858, 350 Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359

1-800-368-6868

I-50

Index

Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784, 285. See also Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789, 286. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794, 287–288 treaty document, 454–456 See also Canandaigua, Treaty of Treaty with the S’Klallam, January 26, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Snake, August 12, 1865, 356–357 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, November 24, 1848, 334 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Utah—Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, 368 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Wea, August 11, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Winnebago, August 1, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Winnebago, September 15, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Winnebago, November 1, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Winnebago, October 13, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Winnebago, February 27, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Winnebago, March 8, 1865, 356 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285. See also Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289. See also Greenville, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, September 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 19, 1832, 312 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, 1842, 330

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1, 1850, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 31, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Yakama, June 9, 1855, 344–345 treaty document, 510–513 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Trent, William, 424 Tribal administration of federation programs, 116–117 Tribal governments, 35, 36 post-1960, 8 Tribal leaders and treaty making, 9 U.S. appointment of, 10 Tribal rights, 46 and statutes, 112–114 Tribal Self-Governance Act, 116 Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act, 116 Tribble, Fred, 156, 721 Tribble, Mike, 156, 721 Trist, Nicholas Philip, 659 Trois Rivières, Treaty of, 236 Tromelin, Legoarant de, 202 Trondek Hwech’in, 403, 404 Truman, Harry S, 682 Trust Doctrine, 954–955 Trust land, 113, 138, 197, 956–957. See also Land; Land acquisition; Land cession; Land compensation Trust relationship and government-togovernment relationship, 930 Trust responsibility, 103, 173, 671, 727, 732, 733, 926, 950, 955, 957–958 Tse-kauwtl, 344 Tsiigehtchic, 392, 400 Tsimshian, 196 Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee), 383 Tualatim Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Tuchebatche Micco, 313 Tuchebatcheehadgo, 313 Tuckenehau Chapco, 292 Tulalip, 152, 154 Tulee v. Washington, 62, 151, 152, 695–696

1-800-368-6868

Index Tulio, 291 Tundra Times, 196 Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN), 402 Tureen, Thomas N., 717, 942 Tuscarora, 44, 53, 69, 688–689 and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 See also Six Nations Tustunnuggee Hopoie, 301 Tutchone, 403 Tutelo, 282 Twana, 99 Twenty Points, 700–701 Two-Kettle (Two Kettle) Treaty with the Sioux—TwoKettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Two Row Wampum, 211 Two Strike, 901 Tygh, 148 Tyler, John, 229 Uc-quaw-ho-ko, 364 Udall, Stewart, 35, 196 UELs. See United Empire Loyalists Uintah, 272 Uintah Indian Reservation, 933 Umatilla, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Umatilla Reservation, 151–152, 159, 697 Umbrella Final Agreement, 403, 404, 405 Umpqua, 98, 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Umpqua-Cow Creek, 226 Unassociated funerary objects, 124, 125, 126. See also Sacred sites Uncas, 767, 906–907 Underground Railroad, 271

www.abc-clio.com

United Anishnabeg Council, 216 United Empire Loyalists (UELS), 212, 213 United Kingdom, 229 United Kingdom Parliament, 214 United Nations, 687 United Native Americans, 691 United State v. Wheeler, 943 United States and reciprocity with Hawaii, 202–203 United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 173 United States v. Bourland, 723 United States v. Creek Nation, 681–682 United States v. Dion, 109, 174, 722–723 United States v. Joseph, 434 United States v. Kagama, 167, 671 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 United States v. Lara, 114 United States v. Libby, McNeill and Libby, 196 United States v. Michigan, 63, 429 United States v. Mitchell and trust doctrine, 955 United States v. Navajo Nation and trust doctrine, 955 United States v. Oregon, 696–697 United States v. Sandoval, 169, 434 United States v. Sioux Nation, 257, 719 United States v. Sosseur, 173 United States v. State of Michigan, 711 United States v. Washington. See Boldt Decision United States v. Wheeler, 62, 63, 114, 714–715 United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 955 United States v. Winans, 170, 695, 944, 954 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 687 Unratified treaties, 97–101. See also Treaties Unrecognized tribes. See Nonrecognized tribes Upper Canada, 235–236, 239 Upper Midwest fishing rights in, 155–158 hunting rights in, 155–158 Uranium, 140. See also Natural resources U.S. Bill of Rights, 36

ABC-CLIO

I-51

U.S. Cavalry, 168 U.S. Civil War, 7, 11, 25, 29–30, 41, 58, 270, 271, 412 and Doaksville, 418 and education, 184 and Fort Gibson, 419 and Indian Territory, 937 treaties during, 269 See also Confederate treaties; Reconstruction treaties U.S. Claims Commission, 18 U.S. Congress, 8, 27, 28, 29, 95–96 and jurisdiction, 169 plenary power of, 109, 126–127. See also Plenary power See also Statutes; U.S. House of Representatives; U.S. Senate U.S. Constitution, 14–15, 22, 27, 36, 44, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 213, 644 commerce clause, 14, 28, 40, 43, 642–643, 666 and education, 190 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and Indian removal, 83 and jurisdiction, 163, 169 and land compensation, 136 and religious freedom, 175 supremacy clause, 28, 64, 154 and treaties, 73–76, 953 and treaty ratification, 135 and treaty rights, 39–40 See also Commerce clause; Supremacy clause U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 U.S. Department of Commerce, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Defense, 33, 167 U.S. Department of Education, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Game and Fish (DGF), 158 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 116 U.S. Department of Justice, 59, 144, 150, 151, 152–153, 942, 950 and Hawaii, 207 U.S. Department of Labor, 942, 950 U.S. Department of State, 55, 95, 167, 203

1-800-368-6868

I-52

Index

U.S. Department of the Interior, 29, 30, 34, 54, 95, 120–121, 138, 140, 145, 270, 684, 717, 722, 926 and Alaska, 195, 196–197, 198 and federal recognition, 176 and Hawaii, 207 and trust land, 956 and trust responsibility, 958 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 705 See also Cohen, Felix S. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 136, 198, 323 U.S. Department of Transportation, 206 U.S. Department of War, 30, 54, 73, 88, 270, 709, 719 and Committee on Indian Affairs, 653 and education, 182 and reservations, 95 U.S. Forest Service, 159 U.S. government and internal tribal matters, involvement in, 8 U.S. House of Representatives, 5, 18, 26, 31, 59 U.S. Indian Office, 270 U.S. Indian Peace Commission. See Great Peace Commission U.S. Public Health Service, 35 U.S. Senate, 5, 59, 73 and treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135, 231 table 4 U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 205 U.S. Supreme Court, 22, 34, 60, 96, 213 and congressional power, 109, 126–127 and jurisdiction, 34 and rules of treaty interpretation, 135 and treaty rights, 40 and tribal sovereignty, 112–114 and water rights, 143 See also individual court cases U.S. v. Cherokee Tobacco. See Cherokee Tobacco case U.S. v. Dion, 45 U.S. v. 4,450,72 Acres of Land, 158–159 U.S. v. Frank Taylor, 150 U.S. v. Joseph, 272 U.S. v. Kagama, 39, 44, 60–61, 61 U.S. v. McBratney, 43 U.S. v. Michigan, 156 U.S. v. Oregon, 153, 155

www.abc-clio.com

U.S. v. Sandoval, 272 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 45 U.S. V. Shoshone Tribe, 62 U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 44 U.S. v. Washington, 41, 45, 153, 154, 155, 159 U.S. v. Winans, 40, 42, 44, 150–151 Usufructuary rights, 41 Utah Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Utah— Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354 Ute, 104, 107, 272, 410, 411 Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, 368 Ute Commission, 31 Ute Reservation, 31 Utrecht, Treaty of, 237 Valentine, Robert G., 182 Vallejo, Mariano, 228 Vallier, S. G., 365 Van Buren, Martin, 90, 91, 321–322, 772, 835 and Trail of Tears, 657 Van der Peet, Dorothy, 728, 729 Vancouver, George, 895 Vancouver Island treaties, 641, 642 Vanderslice, Daniel, 352 Vann, Clement N., 738 Vann, David, 333 Vann, James, 291, 888 Vann Tavern, 429, 430 Vashon, George, 309 Venetie Decision. See Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t Verelst, John, 823 Vermont, 28, 75–76 Verplank, Isaac A., 333 Versailles, Treaty of, 211 Veterans, Indian, 138–139 Victoria, Queen, 229, 785 Vieux De Sert, 341 Village corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Village Maker (Tah-wah-gah-ha), 356 Vincennes, Le Sieur de, 442 Vincennes (Indiana) treaty history of, 441–443 See also Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803; Treaty with the

ABC-CLIO

Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Vincennes Tract, 442 VISTA. See Volunteers in Service to America Voigt, Lester, 156 Voigt Decision, 156 Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force, 157 Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), 114 Voting, in Hawaii, 203–204 Vuntut Gwitchin, 403 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 404–405 Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government Agreement, 405 Wa-gah-sah-pi (Whip), 349 Wa-pan-gia (Swan), 294 Wa-pel-lo, Chief, 331–332 Wa-Swa-Gon Treaty Association, 157 Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), 292 Wabanaki, 211, 236, 716–718 Wabash River (Indiana) treaty history of, 443–444 See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Wabekieshiek, 753 Wabinema (White Sturgeon), 765 Waco (Wacoe), 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Wade, Alfred, 362 Wagohaw, 301 Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), 356 Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-pee (the One That Is Used as a Shield), 358 Wah-mun-dee-o-pee-doo-tah (the War Eagle with the Red Tail), 359 Wah-mun-dee-wak-kon-o (the War Eagle in the Air), 359 Wah-no-ke-ga (Noise), 356

1-800-368-6868

Index Wahpakoota (Wahpaakootah, Wahpacoota, Wahpahoota, Wahpekute), 100, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Wahpeton Sioux, 100 agreement with, 102 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Wahunsonacock (Powhatan), 235, 863–864, 879–880 Wakinyantanka, 847 Walker, Catherine, 330 Walker, Joel, 343 Walker, John, 70, 296 Walker, Robert, 411 Walker, T. H., 333 Walker, Thomas, 282 Walker, William, 323 Walking Buffalo (Tatangamania), 294 Walking Purchase, 245–246 Walla Walla (Wallawalla), 98–99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Walleye War, 249 Wallis, Michael, 852–853 Wallooska, 229 table 1 Walton, George, 289 Wampanoag, 116, 928, 942 Wampum, 162 Wampum belts, 135 Wapaghkonnetta, 312 Wapulla, 302 the War Eagle in the Air (Wah-mundee-wak-kon-o), 359 the War Eagle with the Red Tail (Wah-mun-dee-o-peedoo-tah), 359 War of 1744-1748, 237

www.abc-clio.com

War of 1812, 17, 21, 28, 56, 78, 247, 427, 645, 647, 649, 650, 651 and Indian removal, 84, 85 and Prairie du Chien, 430–431 and Tippecanoe River, 440 treaties after, 262–263 See also Ghent, Treaty of War on Poverty, 35, 114 Ward, William, 87 Ward v. Race Horse, 43, 150, 151 Warm Springs, 152, 414, 415 Warm Springs Power Enterprises Warm Springs Reservation, 112, 227, 684, 697 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 43, 62, 114, 691–692 Wasco, 98–99, 149 Wascopam, 415 Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P. Cerre), 349, 356 Washakie (Pina Quahah; Scar Face), 373–374, 907–909 Washington, D.C., 7 Washington, George, 14, 53–54, 71, 73, 74, 163, 212, 213, 251–252, 424 Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789, 643–644 and Blount, William, 757 and civilization policy, 96 and Clark, William, 775 and Cornplanter, 782 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 645 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 821 and Hopewell Treaty, 285–286 and Indian removal, 83 and Knox, Henry, 839 and Little Turtle, 850 and Red Jacket, 869–870, 885 scorched-earth policy of, 641 and Six Nations Treaty, 287–288 and St. Clair, Arthur, 903 treaties under, 261–262 Washington, John M., 334, 411 Washington, Treaty of, 263, 429 Washington administration, 77 Washington City, Treaty of, 417 Washington State, 225 jurisdiction in, 173 See also Pacific Northwest Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association v. Tollefson, 153

ABC-CLIO

I-53

Washington Territory, 96–97, 101 treaties in, 99 See also Pacific Northwest Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 42, 62, 153–154 Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), 294 Wastch-com-ma-nu (Hard Walker), 356 Wat-che-mon-ne, 328 the Watchfull Fox (Kee-o-kuck), 328 Water, 134–135 Water quality, 141 Water rights, 42–43, 143–145, 175 Water Settlement Acts, 116 Watie, David, 888 Watie, Gallegina. See Boudinot, Elias Watie, Stand, 88, 89, 105, 321, 322, 333, 418, 667, 738, 888, 909–910 Watkins, Arthur V., 684, 910–911, 952 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 Watohkonk. See Kicking Bird Watson, William H., 363, 364, 365 Wau-bon-a-quot, 365 Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, 324 Wau-ke-wau, 323 Wau-pish-shaw, 319 Waubredoaince, 330 Waukikum, 229 table 1 Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 799, 912 Waupaucowela, 286 Waw-baw-que-ke-aw, 322 Waw-was-mo-queh, 323 Wax, Murray L., 794 Way Aga Enogee, 292 Way-namee, 365 Wayne, Anthony, 73–74, 74–75, 76, 289, 412, 426, 646, 775, 839, 846, 850, 902, 913–914 WDNR. See Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Chief, 303 We the People, 161 We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother), 324–325 Wea, 72, 79 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340

1-800-368-6868

I-54

Index

Wea (cont.) Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Wea, August 11, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Wearer of Shoes (Tetawiouche), 298 Weatherford, William, 865 Webster, Daniel, 870 Weeminuche (Wiminuche), 272 Weller, Walter, 315 Wells, William, 442, 807, 850, 914–915 Welsh, Herbert, 826 Wem-se-ko, 323 Wenatshapam, 344–345 Wessells, Captain, 802 Wessonsuoum, 766 West, Rick, 734 West Indies, 55 Western Cherokee Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 Westphalia, Treaty of, 50, 947 Wethillas Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Wet’suwet’en, 729–730 Whaling industry, in Hawaii, 201, 202, 203 Wheelapa, 229 table 1 Wheeler-Howard Ac t. See Indian Reorganization Act Wheelock, Eleazor, 180 Whig Party, 653 Whip (Wa-gah-sah-pi), 349 Whipple, Henry, 18, 26

www.abc-clio.com

Whirling Thunder, 356 White, Ashton S. H., 369 White, Edward Douglass, 44, 825 White, Hugh Lawson, 842 White, James, 792 White, John, 365 White Antelope, Chief, 352, 733 White Bear (Satanta), 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 White Bear’s Face (Mah-to-wee-tah), 304 White Breast, 356 White Cloud (Ma-hos-kah), 302 White Cow (Ta-su), 356 White Elks (Ha-hah-kus-ka), 304 White Eyes, 424 White Hair, Chief, 303 White Horse, 352, 838 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 114 White River, 21 White Shield, 838 White Thunder, 901 Whitefoot v. United States, 152 Whiteley, Simeon, 354 Whiteman, William H., 904 Whitetree, John, 365 Whitney, Eli, 84 Wichita (Witchetaw), 30, 57, 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Wickett, Susanna, 888 Wilcox, Robert, 205 Wild game, 17 Wild Rice Lake Reserve, 158 Wilkie, Madeline, 802 Wilkinson, Charles, 795 Wilkinson, James, 290, 291, 790 Willamette Valley, 97 Willamette Valley Treaty Commission, 225, 229 table 1 Willays Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 William the Conqueror, 944 Williams, George, 309 Williams, Mennen G., 710–711 Williams, Roger, 766, 767, 859, 860, 872, 915–917 Williams, Thomas (Teharagwanegen), 289

ABC-CLIO

Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394 treaty document, 627–635 Williams v. Lee, 62, 113, 114, 173, 686–687, 702, 703, 926 Willis, Albert, 204 Wilson, Dick, 743 Wilson, Elizabeth, 887 Wilson, Joshua, 348 Wilson, Richard, 704–706, 747 Wilson, Woodrow, 33 Wiminuche. See Weeminuche Winan brothers, 150–151 Wind, James, 352 Wind River Reservation, 171, 175, 227–228, 372, 374 Windom, William, 800 Winema, 768 Winnebago, 70, 91–92, 100, 104, 278 and jurisdiction, 161 and Prairie du Chien, 431 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Winnebago, August 1, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Winnebago, September 15, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Winnebago, November 1, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Winnebago, October 13, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Winnebago, February 27, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Winnebago, March 8, 1865, 356 Winnebago Reservation, 161, 350 Winnipeg Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 5 Winslow, Edward, 854–855 Winter’s doctrine, 143, 144–145 Winters v. United States, 42, 138, 143, 170, 678–679, 944 Wirt, William, 56, 57, 654, 655 Wisconsin, 23 jurisdiction in, 172, 173 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1

1-800-368-6868

Index Wisconsin Death March, 91 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 156 Wisconsin Supreme Court, 249 Wish-ham, 345 Wo-A-Si Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-ASi, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Wo-Woz Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, WoWoz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Wolcott, Alexander, 765 Wolcott, Oliver, 285, 640 Wolf, Captain, 309 the Wolf (Nes-mo-ea), 328 the Wolf with the High Back (Sho-emow-e-to-chaw-ca-wewah-ca-to-we), 303 Wolfe, James, 902 Woll-pah-pe, 357 the Womb (Tah-hah-nee-o-tah), 304 Woolrich, Julia, 662–663 Worcester, Samuel Austin, 758 Worcester, Rev. Samuel Austin, 57, 88, 429, 655 Worcester v. Georgia, 22, 23, 40, 57, 60, 88, 113, 136, 166, 213, 263, 265, 639, 653, 655–656, 658, 671, 686, 692, 703, 926, 954 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 948 and trust responsibility, 957 Work, Hubert, 763 Workman, David, 769 World War I, 30 World War II, 34, 687 and Indian veterans, 138–139 Wososey, 297 Wounded Knee occupation of, 171, 701, 703–706, 712 Wounded Knee massacre, 139, 168 Wowinape, 848 Wozencraft, Oliver, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Wright, Allen, 362 Written document, 6, 135, 149, 162

www.abc-clio.com

Wyam, 151 Wyandot, 15, 20, 21, 55, 71, 72, 73, 79, 100, 134, 148, 246, 278 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot, December 14, 1843, 332 and Fort Harmar, 420 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, September 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 19, 1832, 312 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, 1842, 330 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1, 1850, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 31, 1855, 343 Wyandot Reservation, 298 Wynkoop, Edward, 773 Wyoming jurisdiction in, 175 Ya-ha-hadge, 316

ABC-CLIO

I-55

Ya-Ma-Do Treaty with the Das-Pia, YaMa-Do, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3 Yahooskin, 227 Yakama Indian Reservation, 227 Yakama War of 1855-1856, 410 Yakama (Yakima), 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 and fishing rights, 42, 148, 150–151, 152 and gathering rights, 159 and jurisdiction, 170 Treaty with the Yakama, June 9, 1855, 344–345, 510–513 Yakima. See Yakama Yallup, William, 148 Yamasee, 259 Yamhill Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Yampa, 272 Yankton Sioux, 722–723 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Yanktonai and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Sioux— Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Yas-Si Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Yavapai, 136 Yavapai-Prescott, 116 Yellow Bear, 367 Yellow Bird (John Rollin Ridge), 886–887 Yellow Feather (Massasoit), 854–855

1-800-368-6868

I-56

Index

Yellow Hawk (Cha-tau-’hne), 359 Yellow Smoke (Sha-da-na-ge), 356 Yellow Thunder, Raymond, 704 Yellow Thunder Camp, 140 Yoncalla Kalapuya, 230 table 2 York, Duke of, 275, 276 Young, Brigham, 908 Young, Ewing, 769 Young, James, 152

www.abc-clio.com

Young, John, 365 Young King, 289, 290, 885 Young Prophet, 356 Young Wolf, 297 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 41 Yu-Ki-As Treaty with the Sai-Nell, YuKi-As, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3

ABC-CLIO

Yuma, 268, 273 Yurok, 175 Zah, Peterson, 912 Zebaedal (Big Bow), 897 Zebco tribe, 157 Zimmerman, William, 911 Zuni, 272

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty VOLUME II

Donald L. Fixico EDITOR

Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Copyright 2008 by ABC-CLIO, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Treaties with American Indians: an encyclopedia of rights, conflicts, and sovereignty/Donald L. Fixico, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57607-880-8 (hard copy: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57607-881-5 (ebook) 1. Indians of North America—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Indians of North America—United States—Treaties—Encyclopedias. 3. Indians of North America—Government relations. I. Fixico, Donald Lee, 1951– KF8203.6.R74 2008 342.7308’72—dc22 2007027797 12 11 10 09 08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Senior Production Editor: Vicki Moran Editorial Assistant: Sara Springer Production Manager: Don Schmidt Media Editor: Caroline Price Media Resources Coordinator: Ellen Brenna Dougherty Media Resources Manager: Caroline Price File Manager: Paula Gerard ABC-CLIO, Inc 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an ebook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Manufactured in the United States of America

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

This important study of Indian treaties is dedicated to the people of my tribes, who have suffered, endured, and now prosper again: To the Shawnee, To the Sac and Fox, To the Seminole, and To the Muscogee Creek —Donald L. Fixico

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contents VOLUME I Thematic Essays Regional Essays

VOLUME II U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties Important Treaty Sites Primary Source Documents

VOLUME III Historical Chronology Biographies Treaty Related Issues

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Volume II Introduction, xix

U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations– July 31, 1684 Treaty of Montreal–August 7, 1701 British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty– April 8, 1765 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix–November 1768 Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778 Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– January 21, 1785 Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 Treaty with the Choctaw–January 3, 1786 Treaty with the Chickasaw–January 10, 1786 Treaty with the Shawnee–January 31, 1786 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– January 9, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789 Treaty with the Creeks–August 7, 1790 Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791 Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794 Treaty with the Six Nations– November 11, 1794 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc.– December 2, 1794 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada– May 31, 1796 Treaty with the Creeks–June 29, 1796 Treaty with the Mohawk–March 29, 1797 Agreement with the Seneca– September 15, 1797 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 2, 1798

www.abc-clio.com

275 278 279 281 283 285 285 285 286 286 286 286 286 287 287 287 287 288 289 289 289 289 289 289

Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 24, 1801 Treaty with the Choctaw–December 17, 1801 Treaty with the Creeks–June 16, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca–June 30, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca–June 30, 1802 Treaty with the Choctaw–October 17, 1802 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.–August 7, 1803 Treaty with the Kaskasia–August 13, 1803 Treaty with the Choctaw–August 31, 1803 Treaty with the Delaware–August 18, 1804 Treaty with the Piankeshaw–August 27, 1804 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 24, 1804 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– November 3, 1804 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 4, 1805 Treaty with the Chickasaw–July 23, 1805 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.– August 21, 1805 Treaty with the Sioux–September 23, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 25, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 27, 1805 Treaty with the Creeks–November 14, 1805 Treaty with the Choctaw–November 16, 1805 Treaty with the Piankashaw– December 30, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee–January 7, 1806 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.– November 17, 1807 Treaty with the Osage–November 10, 1808 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– November 25, 1808

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

289 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 291 291 291 291 291 291 291 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 293 293 293

x

Volume II Contents

Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.– September 30, 1809 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc.–September 30, 1809 Treaty with the Wea–October 26, 1809 Treaty with the Kickapoo–December 9, 1809 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 22, 1814 Treaty with the Creeks–August 9, 1814 Treaty with the Potawatomi–July 18, 1815 Treaty with the Piankashaw–July 18, 1815 Treaty with the Teton–July 19, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes– July 19, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River–July 19, 1815 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux–July 19, 1815 Treaty with the Makah–July 20, 1815 Treaty with the Kickapoo–September 2, 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– September 8, 1815 Treaty with the Osage–September 12, 1815 Treaty with the Sauk–September 13, 1815 Treaty with the Fox–September 14, 1815 Treaty with the Iowa–September 16, 1815 Treaty with the Kansa–October 28, 1815 Treaty with the Cherokee–March 22, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee–March 22, 1816 Treaty with the Sauk–May 13, 1816 Treaty with the Sioux–June 1, 1816 Treaty with the Winnebago–June 3, 1816 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo– June 4, 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 24, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee–September 14, 1816 Treaty with the Chickasaw– September 20, 1816 Treaty with the Choctaw–October 24, 1816 Treaty with the Menominee–March 30, 1817 Treaty with the Oto–June 24, 1817 Treaty with the Ponca–June 25, 1817 Treaty with the Cherokee–July 8, 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– September 29, 1817

www.abc-clio.com

293 293 293 293 293 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 295 295 295 295 295 295 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 297 297 297 297 297 297 297 297

Agreement with the Piankeshaw– January 3, 1818 Treaty with the Creeks–January 22, 1818 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee–June 18, 1818 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee–June 19, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic–June 20, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar–June 22, 1818 Treaty with the Quapaw–August 24, 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– September 17, 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot–September 20, 1818 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc.– September 25, 1818 Treaty with the Osage–September 25, 1818 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 2, 1818 Treaty with the Wea–October 2, 1818 Treaty with the Delaware–October 3, 1818 Treaty with the Miami–October 6, 1818 Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 19, 1818 Treaty with the Cherokee–February 27, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo–July 30, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo–August 30, 1819 Treaty with the Chippewa–September 24, 1819 Treaty with the Chippewa–June 16, 1820 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa– July 6, 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo–July 19, 1820 Treaty with the Wea–August 11, 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion–September 5, 1820 Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820 Treaty with the Creeks–January 8, 1821 Treaty with the Creeks–January 8, 1821 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 29, 1821 Treaty with the Osage–August 21, 1822 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– September 3, 1822 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians– September 18, 1823 Agreement with the Seneca–September 3, 1823 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–August 4, 1824 Treaty with the Iowa–August 4, 1824 Treaty with the Quapaw–November 15, 1824 Treaty with the Choctaw–January 20, 1825

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

298 298 298 298 298 298 298 298 298 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 300 300 300 300 300 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 302 302 302 302 302 302

Volume II Contents Treaty with the Creeks–February 12, 1825 Treaty with the Osage–June 2, 1825 Treaty with the Kansa–June 3, 1825 Treaty with the Ponca–June 9, 1825 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux– June 22, 1825 Agreement with the Creeks–June 29, 1825 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes– July 5, 1825 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe–July 6, 1825 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe–July 16, 1825 Treaty with the Arikara Tribe–July 18, 1825 Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe–July 30, 1825 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe–July 30, 1825 Treaty with the Crow Tribe–August 4, 1825 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage– August 10, 1825 Treaty with the Kansa–August 16, 1825 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes–September 26, 1825 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe– September 30, 1825 Treaty with the Makah Tribe–October 6, 1825 Treaty with the Shawnee–November 7, 1825 Treaty with the Creeks–January 24, 1826 Treaty with the Chippewa–August 5, 1826 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 16, 1826 Treaty with the Miami–October 23, 1826 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– August 11, 1827 Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 19, 1827 Treaty with the Creeks–November 15, 1827 Treaty with the Miami–February 11, 1828 Treaty with the Western Cherokee– May 6, 1828 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc.– August 25, 1828 Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 20, 1828 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–July 29, 1829 Treaty with the Winnebago–August 1, 1829

www.abc-clio.com

302 303 303 303 303 303 303 303 304 304 304 304 304 304 304 304 306 306 306 306 306 306 307 307 307 307 307 308 308 308 309 309 309

Treaty with the Delaware–August 3, 1829 Treaty with the Delaware– September 24, 1829 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc.– July 15, 1830 Treaty with the Chickasaw–August 31, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 Treaty with the Menominee–February 8, 1831 Treaty with the Menominee– February 17, 1831 Treaty with the Seneca–February 28, 1831 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc.–July 20, 1831 Treaty with the Shawnee–August 8, 1831 Treaty with the Ottawa–August 30, 1831 Treaty with the Wyandot–January 19, 1832 Treaty with the Creeks–March 24, 1832 Treaty with the Seminole–May 9, 1832 Treaty with the Winnebago– September 15, 1832 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– September 21, 1832 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band– October 11, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 20, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 20, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 22, 1832 Treaty with the Kickapoo–October 24, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 26, 1832 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc.– October 26, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 26, 1832 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc.– October 27, 1832 Treaty with the Menominee–October 27, 1832 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea– October 29, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee– December 29, 1832 Treaty with the Western Cherokee– February 14, 1833 Treaty with the Creeks–February 14, 1833 Treaty with the Ottawa–February 18, 1833 Treaty with the Seminole–March 28, 1833 Treaty with the Quapaw–May 13, 1833

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xi 309 309 310 310 310 311 311 312 312 312 312 312 312 313 313 313 313 313 314 314 314 314 314 314 315 315 315 315 315 316 316 316 316

xii

Volume II Contents

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band– June 18, 1833 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri– September 21, 1833 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– September 26, 1833 Treaty with the Pawnee–October 9, 1833 Treaty with the Chickasaw–May 24, 1834 Treaty with the Miami–October 23, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi– December 10, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi– December 16, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi– December 17, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi– December 24, 1834 Agreement with the Cherokee– March 14, 1835 Treaty with the Caddo–July 1, 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.– August 4, 1835 Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835 Treaty with the Potawatomi–March 26, 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–March 28, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi– March 29, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 11, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 22, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 22, 1836 Treaty with the Wyandot–April 23, 1836 Treaty with the Chippewa–May 9, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi– August 5, 1836 Treaty with the Menominee– September 3, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux–September 10, 1836 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc.– September 17, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 20, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 22, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 23, 1836

www.abc-clio.com

316 316 317 319 319 319 319 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 322 322 323 323 323 323 323 323 324 324 324 324 324 325 325

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe– September 27, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– September 28, 1836 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc.–October 15, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux–November 30, 1836 Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw– January 17, 1837 Treaty with the Potawatomi– February 11, 1837 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc.–May 26, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837 Treaty with the Sioux–September 29, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– October 21, 1837 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux– October 21, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– October 21, 1837 Treaty with the Winnebago– November 1, 1837 Treaty with the Iowa–November 23, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa– December 20, 1837 Treaty with the New York Indians– January 15, 1838 Treaty with the Chippewa–January 23, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida–February 3, 1838 Treaty with the Iowa–October 19, 1838 Treaty with the Miami–November 6, 1838 Treaty with the Creeks–November 23, 1838 Treaty with the Osage–January 11, 1839 Treaty with the Chippewa–February 7, 1839 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee–September 3, 1839 Treaty with the Miami–November 28, 1840 Treaty with the Wyandot–March 17, 1842 Treaty with the Seneca–May 20, 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– October 11, 1842 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot–December 14, 1843

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

325 325 325 325 326 327 327 327 327 328 328 328 328 328 328 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 330 330 330 330 330 330 331 331 332

Volume II Contents Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole– January 4, 1845 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe– January 14, 1846 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc.–May 15, 1846 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation– June 5 and 17, 1846 Treaty with the Cherokee–August 6, 1846 Treaty with the Winnebago–October 13, 1846 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior– August 2, 1847 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians–August 21, 1847 Treaty with the Pawnee–Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc.–August 6, 1848 Treaty with the Menominee–October 18, 1848 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe– November 24, 1848 Treaty with the Navajo–September 9, 1849 Treaty with the Utah–December 30, 1849 Treaty with the Wyandot–April 1, 1850 Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7, 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850 Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands–July 23, 1851 Treaty with the Sioux–Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands–August 5, 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.– September 17, 1851 Treaty with the Chickasaw–June 22, 1852 Treaty with the Apache–July 1, 1852 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache–July 27, 1853 Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes– September 8, 1853 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe– September 10, 1853 Treaty with the Umpqua–Cow Creek Band–September 19, 1853 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri– March 15, 1854 Treaty with the Omaha–March 16, 1854

www.abc-clio.com

332 332 332 332 333 333

333 333 333 333 334 334 334 334 334 335 336 336 336 337 337 338 338 338 338 338 338

Treaty with the Delaware–May 6, 1854 Treaty with the Shawnee–May 10, 1854 Treaty with the Menominee–May 12, 1854 Treaty with the Iowa–May 17, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri– May 18, 1854 Treaty with the Kickapoo–May 18, 1854 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc.– May 30, 1854 Treaty with the Miami–June 5, 1854 Treaty with the Creeks–June 13, 1854 Treaty with the Chippewa– September 30, 1854 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–November 4, 1854 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe– November 15, 1854 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc.– November 18, 1854 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya– November 29, 1854 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri–December 9, 1854 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.– December 26, 1854 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc.– January 22, 1855 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc.– January 22, 1855 Treaty with the S’Klallam–January 26, 1955 Treaty with the Wyandot–January 31, 1855 Treaty with the Makah–January 31, 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa–February 22, 1855 Treaty with the Winnebago–February 27, 1855 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc.– June 9, 1855 Treaty with the Yakama–June 9, 1855 Treaty with the Nez Percé–June 11, 1855 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw– June 22, 1855 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon– June 25, 1855 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.–July 1, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc.–July 16, 1855

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xiii 339 339 339 339 339 340 340 340 340 340 342 342 342 342 342 342 343 343 343 343 344 344 344 344 344 345 345 346 346 346

xiv

Volume II Contents

Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa– July 31, 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie–August 2, 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc.– August 2, 1855 Treaty with the Blackfeet–October 17, 1855 Treaty with the Molala–December 21, 1855 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee– February 5, 1856 Treaty with the Menominee– February 11, 1856 Treaty with the Creeks, Etc.–August 7, 1856 Treaty with the Pawnee–September 24, 1857 Treaty with the Seneca–Tonawanda Band–November 5, 1857 Treaty with the Ponca–March 12, 1858 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux–April 19, 1858 Treaty with the Sioux–June 19, 1858 Treaty with the Sioux–June 19, 1858 Treaty with the Winnebago–April 15, 1859 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–July 16, 1859 Treaty with the Sac and Fox–October 1, 1859 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe–October 5, 1859 Treaty with the Delaware–May 30, 1860 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne– February 18, 1861 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc.– March 6, 1861 Treaty with the Delaware–July 2, 1861 Treaty with the Potawatomi– November 15, 1861 Treaty with the Kansa–March 13, 1862 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Bœuf–June 24, 1862 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands–March 11, 1863 Treaty with the Nez Percé–June 9, 1863 Treaty with the Kickapoo–June 28, 1863 Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone– July 2, 1863 Treaty with the Shoshone–Northwestern Bands–July 30, 1863 Treaty with the Western Shoshone– October 1, 1863

www.abc-clio.com

346 347 347 347 348 348 348 348 349 349 349 349 350 350 350 350 350 351 351 351 352 352 352 352 352

353 353 353 353 354

Treaty with the Chippewa–Red Lake and Pembina Bands–October 1, 1863 Treaty with Utah–Tabeguache Band– October 7, 1863 Treaty with the Shoshone-Goship– October 12, 1863 Treaty with the Chippewa – Red Lake and Pembina Bands–April 12, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pillager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands–May 7, 1864 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.– October 14, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River– October 18, 1864 Treaty with the Omaha–March 6, 1865 Treaty with the Winnebago–March 8, 1865 Treaty with the Ponca–March 10, 1865 Treaty with the Snake–August 12, 1865 Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory– September 13, 1865 Treaty with the Osage–September 29, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Miniconjou Band– October 10, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Lower Brulé Band– October 14, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho– October 14, 1865 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho–October 17, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa– October 18, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Two-Kettle Band– October 19, 1865 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux– October 19, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Sans Arcs Band– October 20, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Hunkpapa Band– October 20, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Yanktonai Band– October 20, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux–Upper Yanktonai Band–October 28, 1865

354

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

354 354 354 355

355 355

355 355 356 356 356

357 357 357 357 357 358 358 358 358 359 359 359 360

Volume II Contents Treaty with the Sioux–Oglala Band– October 28, 1865 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes– November 15, 1865 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole–April 28–July19, 1866 Treaty with the Seminole–March 21, 1866 Treaty with the Potawatomi– March 29, 1866 Treaty with the Chippewa–Bois Fort Band– April 7, 1866 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw– April 28, 1866 Treaty with the Creeks–June 14, 1866 Treaty with the Delaware–July 4, 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee–July 19, 1866 Agreement at Fort Berthold–July 27, 1866 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– February 18, 1867 Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands–February 19, 1867 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc.– February 23, 1867 Treaty with the Potawatomi– February 27, 1867 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi–March 19, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche– October 21, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache–October 21, 1867 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho– October 28, 1867 Treaty with the Ute–March 2, 1868 Treaty with the Cherokee–April 27, 1868 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho– April 29, 1868 Treaty with the Crow–May 7, 1868 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho–May 10, 1868 Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3, 1868 Treaty with the Nez Percé–August 13, 1868

www.abc-clio.com

360 360

360 362 362 362 362 362 363 363 363 364 364

365 365 365 365 366 366 368 368 369 369 369 370 372 374

Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2– August 1871 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians– September 20, 1872 Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians–March 2, 1873 Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873 Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874 Canadian Indian Treaty 5–September 24, 1875 Canadian Indian Treaty 6–August 28, September 9, 1876 Canadian Indian Treaty 7–September 22, December 4, 1877 Agreement with the Crow–May 14, 1880 Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes–October 17, 1882, to January 3, 1883 Agreement with the Columbia and Colville– July 7, 1883 Canadian Indian Treaty 8–June 21, 1899 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty)–November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906 Canadian Indian Treaty 10– September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907 Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to August 30, 1921 Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga–October to November 1923 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement–November 11, 1975 Northeastern Quebec Agreement– January 31, 1978 Inuvialuit Final Agreements–June 1984 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement–April 1992 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement– May 25, 1993 Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement– May 29, 1993 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement– May 29, 1993 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement– September 6, 1993 Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xv

375

376 376 377 378 380 381 382 385

385 385 385

388 390 391 393 395 397 398 400 401 403 404

405 406

xvi

Volume II Contents

Important Treaty Sites Camp Stevens (Walla Walla), Washington Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Chicago, Illinois Council Grove, Kansas Dalles, The, Oregon Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi Doak’s Stand, Mississippi Doaksville, Oklahoma Fort Gibson, Oklahoma Fort Harmar, Ohio Fort Harrison, Indiana Fort Laramie, Wyoming Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania Fort Sumner, New Mexico

409 410 412 413 414 416 416 417 419 420 421 421 424 425

Greenville, Ohio Medicine Creek, Washington Michilimackinac, Michigan New Echota, Georgia Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin Sandy Lake, Minnesota Santa Fe, New Mexico Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario St. Joseph, Michigan St. Louis, Missouri Tippecanoe River, Indiana Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota Vincennes, Indiana Wabash River, Indiana

426 427 428 429 430 433 433 434 436 437 439 441 441 443

Primary Source Documents Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 Treaty with the Creeks, 1832 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 Treaty of Chicago, 1834 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842 Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850 Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Yakima, 1855 Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

www.abc-clio.com

449 450 451 454 456 459 464 468 476 478 480 483 491 493 495 498 500 502 507 510 513

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867 Treaty with the Navajo, 1868 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868–Juy 3, 1968 Treaties 1 and 2, 1871 Treaty 3, 1871 Treaty 4, 1874 Treaty 5, 1875 Treaty 6, 1876 Treaty 7, 1877 Treaty 8, 1899 Treaty 9, 1905 Treaty 10, 1906 Treaty 11, 1922 Williams Treaties, 1923

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

518 522 527 538 542 550 552 556 559 566 573 581 595 598 603 607 612 622 627

Volume II Contents

Resources, R-1 Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings, R-1 Tribal Name Meanings, R-7 Treaties by Tribe, R-14 Common Treaty Names, R-31

Selected Bibliography, B-1 Index, I-1

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xvii

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP is the most commonly used phrase in the language of Indian treaties. The intent of the United States as a young country was to persuade Indian communities to deal only with the United States. Many things were unsettled following the American Revolution, and the tribes found themselves in the middle of it. In the early years of U.S.Indian relations, the tribes also had common interest with the British, the French, and the Dutch. Indian agents and other government officials in the United States negotiated more than four hundred treaties and agreements with American Indians; treaty talks occurred for more than one hundred years. Interestingly, Indian and white leaders met at various sites that often had been the meeting places for previous trading and council meetings. Negotiating in Native languages and English through interpreters was difficult, although some Native people spoke some of the white man’s tongue. Beginning in 1778 with the Delaware, when the United States negotiated its first successful treaty with an Indian tribe and ratified it, a historic precedent was set, one that has made Native Americans a unique minority in their own country. For the record, Indian tribes in what is now the United States also made treaties with the British, the French, the Confederate States during the Civil War, and with other Indian tribes. In Canada, the federal government negotiated seventeen treaties with the First Nations peoples, starting in 1871 and ending in the twentieth century. These consist of thirteen numbered treaties plus the four Robinson and Williams treaties. The mid-nineteenth century represented the zenith of treaty making; during the next twenty years, the practice sharply declined. A rider attached to a congressional appropriations act in 1871 ended the Indian treaty-making business in the United States, although agreements were negotiated until 1917. The Act of 1871 did not end the recognition of Indian treaties, however; it merely halted the treatymaking process. U.S.-Indian treaties often included more than one tribe, and some tribes signed many treaties.

www.abc-clio.com

There are 374 ratified treaties and 16 agreements. The first treaty was concluded in 1778; the last one, during the late nineteenth century. The shortest treaty is with the Kickapoo in 1820. The treaty is 16 lines long, with 8 Kickapoo leaders and 6 American officials who signed, involving $2,000 to be paid for Kickapoo removal. The longest treaty is the Treaty with the New York Indians of 1838 at Buffalo Creek in New York; that treaty is 15 pages long. The Potawatomi signed the most treaties of any tribe, a total of 26. The biggest gathering was the council held at Medicine Lodge, Kansas, during October 1867, at which 500 soldiers met with more than 15,000 Plains Indians gathered from the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche. The largest number of treaties were signed in 1825 and 1836, 20 each year; 19 treaties were signed in 1855, 18 in 1865, and 17 in 1832. In regard to categories, 229 treaties involve ceded lands; 205 are about payments and annuities; 202 include the phrase peace and friendship; 115 are about boundaries; 99 address reservations; 70 include civilization and agriculture; 59 are about roads and free passages; 52 address the sovereignty or the authority of the United States or tribes; 49 include allotment and guaranteed lands; 47 contain gifts, goods, or presents; 38 contain provisions on education; 34 contain provisions on hunting, fishing, and gathering rights; 28 authorize forts and military posts; 25 include trade; 12 address railroads; several include agents for the tribes; and a few treaties deal with one or more of the following: stolen horses, returning prisoners, slavery, returning criminals, intruders, scalping, alcohol, missions, and mail routes. Treaties between Indian tribes and the United States are binding agreements. For Native peoples, each step of the negotiation was important, not just the resulting words on a piece of paper. Indian agents, military officials, and officials of the Indian Office met with Native leaders to begin negotiations, which usually began with a council held at a previously agreed-upon site. To Native people, the chosen

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xx

Introduction

site was important, and the talk itself was just as significant as the resulting treaty or agreement. The site itself, such as the one near Medicine Lodge in southwestern Kansas and Prairie du Chien in western Wisconsin, set the tone of the council. Medicine Lodge has made a lasting impression and is reenacted every five years. The first meeting, or council, between Indian and white leaders likely made or broke the tone of the talks. The council was a fundamental concept among the Indian nations, and tribal protocols varied from tribe to tribe. Unsure of how to approach the various tribes, federal officials depended upon local whites, guides, and traders to introduce them to the tribes in their areas. Familiar with the ways of the Indian tribe, these individuals advised officials how to approach Native leaders. In learning the protocol for dealing with tribes, federal officials experienced difficulty in meeting with more than one tribe at the same time. They made the mistake of trying to get enemy tribes to meet at the same council. Even tribes who met only sometimes, such as the Plains Indians, who gathered annually during the summer to hold the Sun Dance, had a mutual understanding of the importance of the arrival at camp, as exemplified by the Medicine Lodge Council in 1867. Dressed in their finest ceremonial garb, a tribe also sometimes wanted to be the last to arrive so that other tribal groups would acknowledge that an important group had arrived. Protocol is involved in any type of summit, council, or important discussion involving conflicting interests, especially if there are deep differences between cultures. In the general situation of treaty talks, white officials learned a lot about the importance of kinship relations in forming an agreement, especially if it resulted in an alliance between the two sides. Early treaties—those concluded before the mid-nineteenth century—were often peace treaties, for the United States wanted tribes to acknowledge their relationship with the new nation and abrogate relations with the British and the French. Bringing about peace following a battle or other conflict created balance between two opposites, and this tranquil state of existence fostered mutual respect between the two parties and a need for ceremonial acknowledgement. Thus, smoking the pipe was germane to solidifying the new relationship of nonconflict. The language barrier between the two sides caused great skills in diplomacy to be exercised. During the height of contact between Indians and

www.abc-clio.com

whites in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 250 indigenous languages were spoken. The role of interpreters, both Indian and white, became crucial to treaty negotiations. The varying protocols among tribes for holding councils compelled American officials to learn about tribal leaders before talks of a serious nature began. Cultural differences added to language barriers as problems arose, often intensifying the clashing views of Indians and whites over land. One perceived land and what it meant economically, and the other understood the earth philosophically and celebrated it with ceremonies. The same commodity became homeland for both sides, and ensuing treaties named who owned the land. A new culture of treaty making emerged from the older Indian way of holding council and talking. Gift giving played a crucial role in the early contact and negotiations between Indian and white leaders. Federal officials typically brought gifts of inexpensive items such as mirrors, metalwork, and beads to get the Indians into a peaceful frame of mind that would lead to the discussion of bigger issues, such as land cessions. As mentioned, at least forty-seven treaties contained provisions for giving gifts and presents. Officials understood the importance of generosity and sharing among Native peoples and used this against them, hence the “Great White Father” in Washington held a position of respect and generosity. The cultural difference between Indians and whites proved to be enormous. In addition to the language barriers, both sides operated from different mind-sets; each held different ideas about what was important for the negotiations and what the negotiations meant. Native leaders and federal officials had a challenging situation to overcome before they could begin successful discussions. It is said that, on one occasion Osceola, the noted leader of the Seminole in Florida, disagreeing with tribal leaders who signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson in 1833, stabbed his knife through the two pieces of paper on the table. This was his angry response to all treaties, letting others know that his mind was set on going to war. It is likely that this did happen since there is a hole in the original treaty kept in a vault at the National Archives in Washington. “Touching the pen” became a common occurrence during Indian treaty making. Native leaders were unable to write their names because they did not know the English language, and therefore white officials asked Native leaders to “make their

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

mark”—which was of little importance to American Indians, who believed that the spoken word was superior to any words on a piece of paper, which might be blown away by the wind or destroyed; the spoken word would always be remembered. Several treaty councils witnessed impressive oratory articulated by tribal leaders. This was not the white way. The majority of Indian treaties verify the marks made by the tribal leaders. In other situations, the leaders refused to hold the white man’s writing instrument, and the federal officials asked the Native leaders to touch the pen after the names were written by the official in charge. The most important concern for Native peoples in treaty negotiations was their sovereignty. Sovereignty is an important issue of concern resulting from the U.S.-Indian and Canada-First Nations agreements. The signing of a treaty creates binding responsibilities between both sides and includes the respectful recognition of each for the other. Theoretically, the relationship between the two sides is one of a sovereign forming an agreement with another sovereign—that is, government-to-government in a lateral relationship of similar status. The status is one of international law and based on each party to the treaty having faith in the agreement and recognizing each other as being sovereign. Trust is a meaningful legal responsibility between two nations and their people, and treaties established this reciprocal relationship. Both sides of a treaty agreement must abide by the provisions and must continue to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the document. That trust responsibility continues into this century, in the hands of the assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior, who supervises the Bureau of Indian Affairs for all tribes in the United States. Treaties were a systematic procedure for dealing with Indian tribes. By examining the history of these agreements, some assessment can be made about them in stages or phases. For example, treaty negotiations, talks, or councils were the first step in this system of agreements. During these important gatherings, significant Indian individuals were recognized and acknowledged so the representatives of the United States would know who they were dealing with. In some cases, such as the Prairie du Chien meeting, “making chiefs” occurred; this happened more than once when government officials persuaded certain individuals to sign for their tribes as leaders. The federal government operated on the political philosophy that a head of state represented

www.abc-clio.com

xxi

a nation, thus an Indian nation must have one significant leader or chief. This was not the case with many tribes, such as the Muscogee Creek, the Ojibwa, and others, who had leaders for each town or village and settlements scattered over a vast region of the country. Discussion of the treaty’s provisions was another critical phase of Indian treaty making. Both sides met with an agenda of needs, according to their thinking, and they lobbied to obtain agreement from the other side. Some acute Native leaders saw that education was an important part of the future of their people and wanted educational assistance in the form of teachers. Common provisions included goods and annuities over a number of years and perhaps blacksmiths. Most of all, large sums of money were paid to the tribes for their lands. The next phase consisted of the results of treaties—some of which caused important changes, such as the exchange of enormous tracts of land for perpetual gifts, or changes in fishing or hunting rights on ceded lands. The treaties led to a new era in Indian-white relations and actually marked the decline of the strength of Indian nations. This decline became evident as tribes such as the Potawatomi, Delaware, Chippewa, and others signed several treaties with the United States. After 1800, the federal government almost always had the leverage in treaty talks. Strategies of treaty-making involve several motives, all of which resulted in the decline of the Indian nations. These strategies involved introducing the idea of one nation, one leader; setting boundaries; manipulating leadership; making chiefs; courting treaty signers; and giving gifts to influence tribes and their leaders. Such actions almost always were directed toward Indian men, not toward women (although, in many tribes, women held the authority to select their leaders). Peace was the main objective in the early U.S. treaties until about 1850. The federal government found it much easier to make peace with the Indian nations than to fight them, which proved costly, especially as great effort was needed just to find them. The United States signed 374 treaties but fought more than 1,600 wars, battles, and skirmishes against Indian tribes. The Navajo Treaty of 1849 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 were negotiated with peaceful objectives in mind rather than more land cessions. The Fort Laramie agreement involved multiple groups of the Northern Plains, Sioux, Gros Ventre, Mandan, Arikara, Assinaboine, Blackfeet, Crow,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xxii

Introduction

Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Boundaries were set to keep them apart, with additional provisions for roads and military posts included as part of the treaty. The establishment of boundaries for tribes was another goal for government officials as they treated with Indian leaders. Many tribes hunted over vast territories; government officials were able to contain tribes within certain areas, and they reminded leaders of the boundaries established in the agreements. Officials introduced Native peoples to the idea of land ownership and individual ownership. In 1858, the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux signed a treaty in Washington, D.C., agreeing to new reservation boundaries. This led to the surveying of the tribal land for division into individual eighty-acre allotments. In this way, tribal lands were reduced in size. At times, the United States undermined and manipulated leadership to get the lands it wanted. The importance of kinship played a vital role in treaty making between Indians and the United States. Federal officials learned of the importance of kinship and symbolic bonds in tribal communities and used this knowledge to develop a tribal dependence on the “Great White Father” in Washington. When the leaders of tribes refused to negotiate, federal officials sought out other Indians who were more easily persuaded to sign treaty documents. Land acquisition was the principal reason for treaties and was pursued to such an extreme extent that, by the end of the nineteenth century, American Indians held less than 2 percent of the land that they had once possessed totally. The unleashed white settler became an uncontrollable force to consume Indian lands. Such was the settlers’ greed that federal officials were forced to deal with tribes, which resulted in many Indian removal treaties or war. A domino effect occurred as eastern tribes moved onto lands of interior groups, who moved onto lands of western tribes, and so forth. Expansion of the United States was another goal of government officials. During the Civil War, federal officials negotiated, and the government ratified, eighteen treaties that called for expanding the territory held by the Union. During the three years between March 1862 and March 1865, federal officials concluded treaties with the Kansa, Ottawa, Chippewa, Nez Percé, Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, Modoc, Omaha, Winnebago, and Ponca Nations. These agreements included land cessions and fur-

www.abc-clio.com

ther diminished the territories of the tribes. Indian lands were further reduced by the systematic creation of “permanent” reservations. Control of tribal movements was the final strategy and result of the treaties. With treaties in place and with military power greater than that of the tribes, the United States could enforce control over the weakened Indian nations. Once the leaders were undermined and control exerted over them, Indian superintendents controlled the Indians and conditions on the almost two hundred reservations throughout Indian country. Land was the central issue of U.S.-Indian treaties. As more settlers arrived from England and other countries, the need for more Indian land placed considerable pressure on the Indian tribes. A domino effect began to occur as eastern seaboard tribes of the Atlantic coast retreated inland, thereby encroaching on the hunting domains and farming areas of tribes nearby to the west. The expansion of white settlement across the Appalachian Mountains caused the newly formed United States to treat with the inland tribes. British agents and traders worked among the Indian nations to gain their allegiance and convince them to reject the proposed talks of federal officials. At the same time, other European interests in the form of French, Scots, and Irish traders proved successful in obtaining acceptance among tribes. These trading activities made it more difficult for the United States as more Americans pushed into the Ohio Valley and the back country of the Southeast. The most obvious kind of treaty called for tribes to surrender their lands. In less than thirty years, from 1801 to 1829, federal officials made thirty-one treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These cession treaties extinguished Indian title to all of the area east of the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico. Officially, treaties had to be ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Congressional ratification was most active during the 1800s, as federal officials met with Native leaders at an increasing rate. Treaty making fell into a pattern: More and more treaties were negotiated with eastern tribes, who were thus forced to keep moving westward; the Delaware, for example, were forced to remove at least nine times. Unratified treaties were agreements not confirmed by the U.S. Congress. Naturally, many agree-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

ments were submitted to Congress; most submissions were ratified, and some had their provisions amended. It is estimated that between forty-seven and eighty-seven treaties were unratified. Most Native leaders did not understand the ratification process and believed that all the agreements they made were official.

Organization of the Encyclopedia This encyclopedia is intended as a comprehensive reference tool for anyone interested in American Indian treaties with the United States. In these three volumes, the larger number of U.S.-Indian treaties, their lengths and complexity, and the complexity of Canada-Indian treaties are described. The volumes are organized in sections. The first volume consists of major essays that explain various perspectives on Indian treaties, and regional treaties. In the second volume, entries are included that describe each treaty; short entries address treaty sites and terms; and there are primary source documents of many treaties. The third volume contains a historical chronology, brief biographies of noted individuals involved in the treaties, and a section on treatyrelated issues.

Acknowledgments This three-volume project has been the work of many people. I have often felt like an academic Sisyphus, facing the enormous task of rolling the big boulder up the mountain. More than three hundred people have helped, supported, and written entries or essays for this encyclopedia. I am grateful for the help of the following individuals, who assisted with this project in the early years at the Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at the University of Kansas: research assistants Viv Ibbett, Melissa Fisher Isaacs, David Querner, and Elyse Towey. I appreciate the support given my work by Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shulenburger, former Associate Dean Carl Strikwerda, and former Dean Kim Wilcox at the University of Kansas.

www.abc-clio.com

xxiii

I would like to express appreciation to the following individuals at Arizona State University, who have been helpful in the completion of this project over the last two years: President Michael Crow; Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Capaldi; former Provost Milton Glick; Vice President David Young, Divisional Dean Debra Losse; former Chairperson Noel Stowe of the History Department; and Chairperson Mark von Hagen. I am grateful for the support from the ASU Foundation, which sponsors my Distinguished Professorship of History, and for ASU as a leading university that supports scholarship in American Indian history. I especially want to thank Clara Keyt as a research and editorial assistant. I thank my research assistants during the final phase: Matt Garrett, Cody Marshall, and Kristin Youngbull; they have helped to track down a lot of information as well as doing other chores. With their help, after I moved to Arizona, the boulder was pushed the rest of the way to the top of the mountain in the sun with a smile. Appreciation is also expressed to all the contributors who wrote entries and the noted scholars who wrote the essays for the encyclopedia. Nor would this project have been possible without the patience, effort, and tremendous understanding of my good friend and editor, Steven Danver. Thank you to Caroline Price for the tremendous illustrations; and to April Wells-Hayes for the thorough copyedit of the manuscript. I wish all editors were like Vicki Moran who guided this project smoothly through all its production stages. I am especially grateful to my wife, Professor April Summitt, whose words of support encouraged me to complete this project. I am also grateful to my son, Keytha Fixico, who has patiently waited for me so that we could go to a movie and do other son-and-dad stuff. Always, I am grateful for the support of my parents, John and Virginia Fixico; and I want to acknowledge my four tribes—the Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Seminole, and Muscogee Creek—to whom this three-volume encyclopedia is dedicated.

ABC-CLIO

Donald L. Fixico Arizona State University

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations July 31, 1684 To stop Iroquois incursions along the western frontier of the British colonies and to forge a stronger alliance against the French, Francis, Lord Howard of Effingham, who was then the governor of Virginia, and Colonel Thomas Dongan, who was the governor of New York, went to Albany to meet with the sachems and warriors of the Five Nations. On July 31 at the Albany courthouse, the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga (the Seneca had not arrived yet) agreed that the Five Nations would no longer attack the Indians living along the frontiers of Virginia and Maryland. In return, they requested the Duke of York’s coat of

Thomas Dongan, governor of New York from 1682 to 1688, helped negotiate the Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

276

Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations – July 31, 1684

A map of the country of the Iroquois Confederacy, or Five Nations, c. 1650. The Iroquois Confederacy was a good example of intertribal alliance, consisting of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas, and later the Tuscaroras. The area covered by the alliance is present-day New York, as well as part of Canada and Lakes Huron, Michigan, Superior, Erie, and Ontario. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

arms to place in their villages as a symbolic deterrent against French aggression. Governor Dongan responded favorably to this request and asked the Five Nations to “make no Covenant and Agreement with the French or any other Nation without my knowledge and Approbation. And that they say the same to the Sennekas” (Wraxall 1915, 10). The Mohawks thereafter offered a tract of land along the Mohawk River to Dongan and his descendants, and another tract of land for Christian use. On August 2, the colonial officials and leaders of the Five Nations met again at the courthouse. The Onondaga and Cayuga addressed Governor Dongan, telling him that they had treated the English well when they (the English) had first arrived in the colonies. They said, “[now] that you are grown Numerous and we decreased, you must Protect us from the French, which if you dont we shall loose our Hunting and Bevers: The French want all the Bevers and are Angry that we bring any to the

www.abc-clio.com

English.” They then proceeded to lay claim to lands along the Susquehanna River, which they had won “by the Sword” and which they had recently refused to sell to William Penn, the proprietor of Pennsylvania. As a token of this agreement, they offered “Two white Buckskins” to be sent to Charles II, so “that He may write and put a great Red Seal thereto, that we put under the Protection of the Great Duke of York, the Susquahanna River above the Wasaghta or Falls together with the rest of our Lands and no one else” (Wraxall 1915, 11–12). On August 5, the Seneca arrived and addressed Governor Howard about the peace: “We are informed, that the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, and Cayugas, have buried the axe already; now we that live remotest off, are come to do the same.” Disavowing their complicity in the Indian raids along the colonial borders and confirming the conditions of the present treaty, they pledged to remain outside Maryland and Virginia: “We understand, that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations – July 31, 1684

because of the Mischief that been done to the People and Castles of Virginia and Maryland, we must not come near the Heads of your Rivers, nor near your Plantations, but keep at the Foot of the Mountains. . . . We . . . shall wholly stay away from Virginia” (Colden 1904, 49–50). With the conclusion of the treaty, the Iroquois became a buffer between French and English interests in North America. Although the Iroquois successfully maintained a neutral position for much of the colonial period, they continued to send small expeditions southward, attacking Indian interests along the Virginia and Maryland borders as well as French interests to the west and north. In response to these incursions, Virginia sent a delegation to Albany in September 1685; among the members was Colonel William Byrd, who accused the Iroquois of breaking their promises under the Albany treaty of 1684. In response, the Iroquois said that the parties that had been out when the peace was concluded in 1684 were responsible for the raiding

277

expeditions. The Mohawk and Seneca also blamed the Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida for the incursions. For much of the colonial period, the issue of Iroquois incursions continued to trouble the British as well as the French in Canada, the effect of an active foreign policy on the part of the Iroquois by which they sought to bring tributary tribes into their Covenant Chain while at the same time playing off the French and English against each other. Michael A. Sletcher

See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Land; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Colden, Cadwallader. 1904. The History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada Which are Dependent on the Province of New York, and are a Barrier Between the English and the French in that Part of the World. New York: A. S. Barnes. Snow, Dean R. 1994. The Iroquois. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

The beaver pelt became an important trade commodity in New England, as Indian demand for firearms and iron goods increased during the seventeenth century. The Beaver Wars were a continuing series of conflicts between the tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy and other tribes of New England over the control of the beaver pelt supply. (North Wind Picture Archives)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

278

Treaty of Montreal – August 7, 1701

Wraxall, Peter. 1915. An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs, Contained in Four Folio Volumes, Transacted in the Colony of New York, from the Year 1678 to the Year 1751. Vol. 21, Harvard Historical Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Treaty of Montreal August 7, 1701 Also known as the Great Peace or the Great Peace of Montreal of 1701, the Treaty of Montreal ended the Beaver Wars. This ended a century of conflict between New France and its Native allies on one side and the Five Nations Iroquois on the other. From July 23 to August 7, more than thirteen hundred Native delegates representing forty nations from Acadia to the Mississippi, from James Bay to the Missouri, met in Montreal to discuss the planting of a tree of peace. Under the terms of the treaty, all sides promised to stop killing one another, the Five Nations promised to remain neutral in all future conflicts between France and Britain, the various Great Lakes nations allowed Iroquois hunters into the region, France promised to mediate between all nations to prevent future conflicts, and the Iroquois agreed to allow France’s Native allies access to Albany. The treaty involved representatives from the Odawa (Ottawa), Wyandot (Huron-Petun), Sauk, Fox, Menominee, Winnebago, Potawatomi, Ojibwa, Miami, Cree, Abenaki, Mascouten, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca Nations. Although the Mohawk did not sign the treaty, they agreed to abide by its terms. Although the French suggested the inclusion of the Dakota, the Great Lakes nations refused. The Huron of the Lorette, located near Quebec City, and the Montagnais, both key allies of the French, did not send representatives to sign the treaty. Although intermittent violence continued, usually sporadic killings of Iroquois hunters in the Great Lakes, the peace held. Yet, the Great Peace failed to end all warfare in the interior. The conflict with the Dakota continued, and in 1712 the entire region was engulfed in the Fox Wars. All sides wanted peace, for a variety of reasons. The French sought to reinforce their position and restore the lucrative fur trade in North America by bringing peace to the pays d’en haut. Additionally, in 1701 Louis XIV announced that French

www.abc-clio.com

policy in America would be predicated on containment of the English along the Atlantic seaboard. Depriving New York of Iroquois support in future conflicts gave the central French colony a buffer and would allow its Native allies unhindered access to English colonial settlements. After a series of defeats at the hands of the Great Lakes nations as well as the French, since the 1690s the Iroquois had realized that a permanent peace was needed before the fate of the Huron befell them, too. The motives of the allies of the French are less clear. It appears that many wanted access to the Albany market, to recover people captured by the Iroquois (the Iroquois also wanted prisoners returned), and to live and hunt in safety. The Iroquois’ failure to bring captives to the conference nearly scuttled the treaty. Wyandot and French diplomacy garnered a promise from the Iroquois to release captives, thereby preventing renewed warfare. As the conference got under way, an epidemic struck the delegates. Many people fell sick before they even reached the conference, and some turned back. The epidemic almost proved the undoing of the conference. First, Natives knew that Europeans were connected to these new epidemics; they often accused the newcomers of using witchcraft to destroy their nations. Second, a Huron chief and key proponent of peace, Kondiaronk (the Rat), died of the sickness. The French held a funeral and gave gifts to wipe the tears away from his people metaphorically and to show that no one was to blame for the death. The Seneca dignitaries used the opportunity to present themselves as most saddened by Kondiaronk’s death by singing his triumphs and their condolences. It is likely that Kondiaronk, even in death, helped bring the delegates together for peace. The treaty of 1701 had an important impact on French-Indian relations. It struck at the core of the French alliance system, strengthening and weakening it at the same time. Although the French became the mediators in all disputes and the nominal heads of the alliance, New France’s dependence on Natives was reinforced. The general tranquility in the East allowed the movement of people back into the partially abandoned Great Lakes-Ohio Valley area. This movement placed many French allies within reach of the thirteen colonies. The Iroquois also encouraged French allies to trade at Albany, which allowed the development of contacts with the English. Moreover, many French allies were drawn to Albany by cheaper, more plentiful, and better-quality trade

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty – April 8, 1765

items. Refugees from the East, such as the Delaware, brought information about the English. As the French alliance system had been founded largely on trade and protection from the Iroquois, these events gave the British potential access to the French allies and vice versa, and thereby posed a threat to the French alliance system. The treaty also recognized Native nationhood. Karl S. Hele References and Further Reading Brandão, J. A., and William A. Starna. 1996. “The Treaties of 1701: A Triumph of Iroquois Diplomacy.” Ethnohistory 43(2): 209 244. Havard, Gilles. 2001a. The Great Peace of Montreal of 1701. Translated by Phyllis Aronoff and Howard Scott. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Havard, Gilles. 2001b. Montreal, 1701: Planting the Tree of Peace. Montreal: Recherches amérindiennes au Québec and McCord Museum of Canadian History. Matusky, Julia G. 2001. “The Great Peace of Montreal, 1701.” Beaver 81(3): 8 12. Richter, Daniel K. 1992. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture.

British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty April 8, 1765 Arguably the only historic treaty with Canadian Inuit, this 1765 peace and friendship accord marked a turning point in the troubled relationship of Inuit and Europeans in Labrador. A cornerstone of British colonial policy, the pact brought the Natives under the King’s protection. It also fostered an alliance with Moravian missionaries, who helped secure British interests by settling among the Inuit, converting them to Christianity, and courting their trade. Labrador passed from French to British hands by the 1763 Treaty of Paris and was soon annexed to the colony of Newfoundland. With its new possession came a history of Inuit-white conflict. Hostilities were largely confined to southern Labrador, where Basque and French whalers and fishers had frequented the Strait of Belle Isle for centuries. Inuit voyaged here from their customary territory in the north to harvest its resources and trade with the

www.abc-clio.com

279

newcomers. Tensions plagued their contacts; Native looting of shore stations sparked a cycle of retaliation and a climate of fear that resisted remedy for generations. On appointing Sir Hugh Palliser military governor of Newfoundland in 1764, the Crown instructed him to end the bloodletting lest it threaten metropolitan investment in the hard-won Labrador fisheries. Preferring diplomacy to a costlier military solution, Palliser laid the groundwork of lasting peace by making the Inuit a solemn promise of the King’s friendship and protection and promising them liberty to trade safely with British merchants. Two documents, his “Proclamation to Bring About Friendly Intercourse with Esquimaux Indians” (July 1, 1764) and “Order for Establishing Communication and Trade with the Esquimaux Savages on the Coast of Labrador” (April 8, 1765), embody key elements of the accord (Great Britain 1927, 930 931, 1297–1298). Palliser enlisted Inuktitut-speaking Moravian missionaries, veterans of the church’s Greenland mission, as go-betweens in peacemaking. Jens Haven initiated the process in 1764 among a small, late-summer gathering of Inuit on Quirpon Island, declaring the King’s goodwill, distributing gifts, and encouraging the Inuit to accept the British as partners (Lysaght 1971, 189). Having opened the door to rapprochement, Haven proposed and received British support for a Moravian mission deep inside Inuit country to the north. Combined with a trade outlet, Palliser advised his superiors, such a post would “keep the rest of the Coast open & free for our Adventurers” (Great Britain 1927, 935). So resolved, the governor visited Labrador in summer 1765 to conclude his accord. With missionaries Christian Drachard and John Hill as intermediaries, Palliser met with more than three hundred Inuit at Pitts Harbour, Chateau Bay, on August 21. The governor looked on as the Moravians distributed gifts and pledged the King’s lasting friendship in return for an end to hostilities and acceptance of missionaries in their midst. The proceedings ended when Palliser asked the people if they were prepared to live in peace with the British. Speaking for his compatriots, the shaman Segulliak “gave him his hand, called him Capt[ain] Chateau, Struck him on the Breast & kissed him saying we will remain your good friends” (Lysaght 1971, 200–201). In a homeward dispatch, Palliser assured the lords of the admiralty that peace was at hand. Moreover, judging by the quantities of baleen and furs the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

280

British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty – April 8, 1765

Moravians ascend the Delaware River in the 1700s. Originally from Bohemia, a number of Moravian Brethren left Germany during the eighteenth century to do missionary work in America and Great Britain. The British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty helped foster an alliance with Moravarian missionaries. (MPI/Getty Images)

Inuit had supplied to licensed English merchants at Chateau Bay, so, too, was a lucrative trade partnership (Great Britain 1927, 946). Four years passed before the Moravians came to terms with the Crown on land grants for their mission, and it was another two years before they founded Nain, their first station, in 1771. Interethnic violence continued to flare in the interim, much of it due to the illegal presence on shore of whalers from the American colonies. Palliser stationed a small garrison at Pitts Harbour in 1766 to shore up his still-fragile pact, a step that did more to suppress Inuit reprisals than the “Crimes and Enormities” of the “Lawless Crews from the Plantations” that fanned the flames of revenge (Great Britain 1927, 1006). Despite these troubles, British officials considered Palliser’s accord unbroken, as did the Inuit who met the governor on his last official visit to Labrador the next year (Whiteley 1969, 158). Once Nain was established, however, the sit-

www.abc-clio.com

uation materially improved the mission’s trade arm and the spread of independent merchants well north of the strait, gradually stemming the southward flow of traffic and, with it, the bloodshed that marked the contact period. By the mid1780s, the full effect of Palliser ’s diplomacy had been realized. Barnett Richling

ABC-CLIO

See also Aboriginal Title; Canada; Inuit; Sovereignty; Treaty. References and Further Reading Great Britain. Privy Council. 1927. In The Matter of the Boundary Between the Dominion of Canada and the Colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula . . . 12 vols. London: W. Clowes and Sons. Lysaght, A. M., ed. 1971. Joseph Banks in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1766: His Diary, Manuscripts and Collections. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1-800-368-6868

Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix – November 1768

Whiteley, William. 1964. “The Establishment of the Moravian Mission in Labrador and British Policy, 1763–1783.” The Canadian Historical Review 45(1): 29–50. Whiteley, William. 1969. “Governor Hugh Palliser and the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery, 1764–1768.” The Canadian Historical Review 50(2): 141–163.

Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix November 1768 The treaty conference with the Six Nations—the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora tribes—held at Fort Stanwix, New York, from October to November 1768 opened a large area of the trans-Appalachian West to white settlement, from southwestern New York to Kentucky. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 was the British government’s attempt to quell illegal encroachment of Native American lands closed to white settlement by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and to slow burgeoning colonial land speculation fueled by a period of

281

frontier peace. Negotiated by William Johnson—the royal government’s superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Department (the region above the Ohio River)—the treaty was to formalize the northern boundary between Native American territories and the British colonies’ western fringe. Britain’s first step in developing a western policy for its American colonies, the boundary line established by the Proclamation of 1763, was a stimulus for the Treaty of Fort Stanwix. The line was strictly geographic, a hurried response to the crisis of Pontiac’s Rebellion, and followed the Appalachian Mountains from New York to Georgia. Frontier settlers, land speculators, and government agents protested the proclamation’s boundary and restrictive provisions. Settlers viewed the boundary as an affront to westward expansion: in western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina the line straddled the frontier, restricting settlement growth. The line also failed to incorporate some existing white settlements, now proclaimed illegal. Land speculators were displeased by the provision forbidding private land purchases from Native Americans. Government agents were concerned

A map showing the territory of the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy in 1771. The Iroquois were a dominant Native American military power in North America during the eighteenth century. (North Wind Picture Archives)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

282

Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix – November 1768

Pontiac’s men release captives taken during Pontiac’s War of 1763, an outgrowth of the French and Indian War. (Library of Congress)

that the provision opening trade to all who obtained licenses would result in the same unscrupulous practices that had angered Native Americans and helped precipitate Pontiac’s Rebellion. The Plan of 1764—proposed by government agents to avert another uprising by confining licensed trade to established posts—failed, as Native Americans refused to trade at distant locales and as free-ranging, unlicensed traders and French voyageurs undermined licensed traders restricted to posts. Factions dissatisfied with the Proclamation of 1763 and the Plan of 1764, especially influential land companies, pressured the royal government to revise its western policy. In 1767, the British government directed Johnson and John Stuart, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern Department (the region below the Ohio River), to negotiate with Native American tribes to shift the boundary line of 1763 farther west. Johnson, who was assigned the

www.abc-clio.com

northern line that was to run from the Great Kanawha River in present-day West Virginia through Pennsylvania to the village of Owege in southern New York, was to treat with the Six Nations. Stuart, who was assigned the southern line through Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, was to treat with the Cherokee. Johnson convened the Fort Stanwix conference in autumn 1768 to settle the northern boundary line. The conference, largest of the colonial period, began on October 22, as more than three thousand Native Americans, colonial delegates, and land speculators arrived at the fort. Prominent colonial attendees included William Franklin, governor of New Jersey and son of Benjamin Franklin; Frederick Smith, chief justice of New Jersey; Richard Peters and James Tilghman, commissioners from Pennsylvania; and Thomas Walker, commissioner from Virginia. Besides the Six Nations, other northern tribes were present who had been displaced from their homelands by white settlement: the Conoy, Delaware, Minisink, Nanticoke, Shawnee, Tutelo, and others. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix was finalized on November 5, 1768. Franklin, Smith, Peters, and Tilghman signed for the colonies of New Jersey and Pennsylvania; Chiefs Tegaya (Cayuga), Teyanhasire (Mohawk), Conaquieso (Oneida), Chenughiata (Onondaga), Gostrax (Seneca), and Sesquaressura (Tuscarora) signed for the Six Nations. The boundary line minted by the treaty (different from that sought by the British government) began near Fort Stanwix and ran southwest into Pennsylvania to include the forks of the Susquehanna River, then along the Allegheny and Ohio rivers to the mouth of the Tennessee River. This vast tract of land was ceded for £10,460 British sterling. Not all lands ceded by the Six Nations in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix were in their control, particularly the Tennessee River region of Kentucky—the historic hunting ground of the Cherokee and Shawnee. The Six Nations may have ceded these lands as proof of their shadowy ownership or as a gesture of goodwill toward the British. Johnson accepted this cession, which violated orders to stop the line at the Great Kanawha River, thus throwing in turmoil the southern boundary line established by Stuart in the 1768 Treaty of Hard Labor with the Cherokee. The northern boundary line, instead of joining with the southern line, ended more than three hundred miles to the west. The British Board of Trade, preoccupied with homeland issues, let the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Delaware – September 17, 1778

283

Robinson, W. Stitt. 1987. Early American Indian Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607–1789. Vol. 5, Virginia Treaties, 1723–1775. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America.

Treaty with the Delaware September 17, 1778

William Franklin, governor of New Jersey, 1763–1766, and Benjamin Franklin’s son, was a delegate to the Treaty Conference with the Six Nations in 1768. (Courtesy of Rutgers University Libraries, Special Collections and Archives).

northern line stand, bolstering land speculators and settlers while infuriating the Cherokee and Shawnee. Charles E. Williams

See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775; Royal Proclamation of 1763; Treaty; Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684. References and Further Reading Billington, Ray A. 1944. “The Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768.” New York History, 25: 182–194. Billington, Ray A. 1974. Westward Expansion: A History of the American Frontier, 4th ed. New York: Macmillan. Hamilton, M. W. 1957. The Papers of Sir William Johnson. Albany: State University of New York. Marshall, Peter. 1967. “Sir William Johnson and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768.” Journal of American Studies, 1: 149–179. Merk, Frederick. 1978. History of the Westward Movement. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Merrell, James H. 1999. Into the American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier. New York: W. W. Norton.

www.abc-clio.com

Among the first treaties entered into with a foreign power by the American government was the treaty of 1778 with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware Nation. This treaty is significant because it came at a time when the United States had placed an important emphasis upon forging treaty alliances; it was the American government’s first ratified treaty with a North American indigenous nation, and many were to follow. The treaty is particularly interesting in light of its language and because the United States, which was at war with England and was operating under its own Articles of Confederation, embraced a strategy that sought either to draw the Delaware Nation into an alliance or to ensure that the Delaware would remain neutral. The first two articles of the treaty proclaim all offenses to be mutually forgiven and require the contracting parties to assist each other if engaged in a “just and necessary” war with any other nation or nations. Article 3, after announcing that the United States was engaged in a just and necessary war, requested that the Delaware provide their most expert warriors to join the American army against a “common enemy.” The first article states that offenses are mutually forgiven. Reference to a “common enemy” in Article 2 is interesting because the Delaware were conquered and made a political dependent of the Iroquois, who claimed they could order the Delaware to go to war and to give up land at their discretion. The United States, realizing that the strength of the Iroquois and the Delaware, when combined with British forces, could create disadvantageous conditions, reasoned that a successful alliance with the Delaware could enhance its position in its war for independence. Throughout negotiations, the Delaware were treated by agents of the American government as a people capable of making the politically independent and sound decisions required of such a treaty. The fact that the Delaware had been made a political dependent of the Six Nations, who were still loosely allied with the British, raises the possibility that the common

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

284

Treaty with the Delaware – September 17, 1778

To obviate such false suggestion, the United States do engage to guarantee to the . . . nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner, as hath been bounded by former treatise . . . it is further agreed on between the contracting parties should it for the future be found conducive for the mutual interest of both parties to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have representation in Congress. (Kappler 1904)

Period drawing of Delaware Indians. Delaware was the name given by the British to members of the Algonquian Indian confederation who lived in the Delaware River Valley. The Delaware signed the first ratified treaty with the newly formed United States of America. (North Wind Picture Archives)

enemy referred to in the treaty was most likely presented to the Delaware as the Iroquois, not the British. Thus, the treaty can be viewed from the perspective of a contract between two distinct cultures allied for the purpose of breaking free from the subjugation of another’s rule. In Articles 4 and 6, it is apparent that the language has been carefully worded to negate any impression that America was exerting dominion over the Delaware. Rather, the treaty favors an image of two distinct nations entering into an activity that acknowledges each other’s political competence and character as sovereign entities. For example, Article 4 expresses that the execution of justice over infractions by “citizens” of either party should be adjudicated in accordance with the laws and customs of both contracting parties:

The same idea was also emphasized in a letter from Secretary of War Henry Knox to the president, stressing that the independent nations and Indian tribes should be considered foreign nations and not the subjects of any particular state. Knox also stated, “. . .[A]ll treaties with Indian nations, however equal and just they may be in their principles, will not only be nugatory but humiliating to the sovereign, unless they shall be guaranteed . . .” (American State Papers 1962). By including an offer to form an “Indian state” replete with congressional representation, the tenor of this treaty can be viewed to adhere to America’s espoused philosophy in the division of sovereign powers. On the basis of this offer, the language of the treaty acknowledges the sovereign status of the Delaware and a confidence in the ability of other Indian nations to function as sovereign entities. S. Neyooxet Greymorning

Whereas the enemies of the United States have endeavored, by every artifice in their power . . . that it is the design of the States . . . to extirpate the Indians and take possession of their country:

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Land. References and Further Reading Abel, Annie H. 1908. “Proposals for an Indian State, 1778–1878,” American Historical Association, Annual Report for the Year 1907: 87–104. American State Papers. 1962. Papers, Indian Affairs, Documents, Legislation and Executive of the Congress of the United States, vol. 4. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. Barsh, Russel, and James Henderson. 1980. The Road, Indian Tribes and Political Liberty. Berkeley: University of California Press. Israel, Fred L., ed. 1967. Major Peace Treaties of Modern History: 1648–1967, 4 vols., New York: Chelsea House/McGraw-Hill. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee – November 28, 1785

Treaty with the Six Nations October 22, 1784 This treaty was completed at Fort Stanwix to facilitate an exchange of prisoners, to determine boundaries, and to organize the delivery of goods to the Six Nations. Oliver Wolcott, Richard Butler, and Arthur Lee signed on behalf of the United States. Twelve leaders, representing the Mohawk, Onondaga, Seneca, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora, signed on behalf of the Six Nations.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. January 21, 1785 Also known as the Treaty of Fort McIntosh, this treaty was entered into by thirteen representatives of the Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa Nations with the United States. The purpose was to smooth relations fractured by the war, to identify territorial boundaries, and to dictate that certain Indian crimes against Americans be tried in the American justice system.

Treaty with the Cherokee November 28, 1785 Better known as the Treaty of Hopewell, this treaty was concluded between the Cherokee peoples and the United States. It reflected a generally accepted pattern of treaty making between America and American Indian tribes that was commonly practiced throughout the late 1780s. After the American Revolution, the newly constituted federal government decided to use a peaceful treaty process to order its relations with Native Americans rather than subduing them outright through conquest. The thirteen articles that constitute the treaty were entered into by four American commissioners and thirtyseven Cherokee “head-men and warriors” on the banks of the Keowee River on November 28, 1785. Specifically, the Treaty of Hopewell provided for post-hostility prisoner exchange, collective placement of the Cherokees under the protection of the United States, determination of boundaries, prohibition of settlement by American citizens on Indian lands, extradition of non-Indian criminals to the United States and their punishment by the United States, prohibition of retaliation by either

www.abc-clio.com

285

side, supremacy of the federal government (over the states) to regulate trade with the Cherokees and special regulation of that trade, notice to the United States by the Cherokees of designs against it which they may discover, allowance of an Indian deputy to Congress, and perpetual peace and friendship. In legal theory, the inherent sovereignty of the Cherokee to manage internal Indian relations among themselves was preserved and protected from outside interference—either by the federal government or by the governments of the states wherein they resided. American federal jurisdiction was triggered only when the actions and/or rights of American citizens were implicated and in relation to trade. The Hopewell treaty, like all treaties concluded by Congress as that body existed in its unicameral form under the Articles of Confederation prior to adoption of the Constitution, reflected the broad federal policy of separation that was based upon George Washington’s suggestion of 1783: As the Country is large enough to contain us all; and as we are disposed to be kind to them and to partake of their Trade, we will . . . draw a veil over what is past and establish a boundary line between them and us beyond which we will endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling, and within which they shall not come, but for the purposes of Trading, Treating, or other business unexceptionable in its nature. (Washington 1783) However, within five years white settlement had increased dramatically on the lands set aside for the Cherokee in the treaty, despite a proclamation by Congress on September 1, 1788, forbidding such activity and directing those citizens who had settled with their families on Cherokee hunting grounds to depart immediately. By 1790, under the new American constitutional system of government, President Washington was obliged to ask Congress its pleasure regarding the issue: Notwithstanding the [Hopewell] treaty and proclamation upward of 500 families have settled on the Cherokee lands exclusively of those settled between the fork of French Broad and Holstein rivers, mentioned in the said treaty. [Thus] I shall conceive myself bound to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

286

Treaty with the Choctaw – January 3, 1786

exert the powers entrusted to me by the Constitution in order to carry into faithful execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless it shall be thought proper to attempt to arrange a new boundary with the Cherokees, embracing the settlements, and compensating the Cherokees for the cessions they shall make on the occasion. (Washington 1790) Congress directed the president to renegotiate with the Cherokee, resulting in the July 2, 1791, Treaty of Holston, which reiterated the general terms of the Treaty of Hopewell but reduced the breadth of Indian lands. This was followed by a succession of treaties gradually reducing both Cherokee lands and sovereignty until their final removal from the Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas area to west of the Mississippi River along the Trail of Tears in 1838. Michael J. Kelly See also Indian Removal; Trail of Tears; Treaty with the Cherokee July 2, 1791; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Kappler, Charles J., ed. and comp. 1975. Indian Treaties, 1778–1883. New York: Interland. Wardell, Morris L. 1938. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation 1838–1907. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Washington, George. 1990. “Letter to James Duane (Sept. 7, 1783).” In Documents of United States Indian Policy, ed. Francis Paul Prucha, 2nd ed., 1– 2. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Treaty with the Choctaw January 3, 1786 Designed to restore peace between the Choctaw and the United States, this treaty was signed at Hopewell. It was also designed to regulate trade and to maintain friendly relations between the two nations. Benjamin Hawkins, Joseph Martin, and Andrew Pickens; representing the United States, signed the document. Approximately thirty Choctaw leaders signed the treaty as well.

Treaty with the Chickasaw January 10, 1786 This treaty was intended to restore peaceful relations between the Chickasaw Nation and the United

www.abc-clio.com

States. Concluded at Hopewell, this treaty was signed by Joseph Martin, Benjamin Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens, commissioners of the United States. Piomingo, Mingatushka, and Latopia signed as respected leaders of the Chickasaw Nation.

Treaty with the Shawnee January 31, 1786 This treaty allots land to the Shawnee people and prohibits Americans from settling on that land. The primary purpose of this treaty was to end hostilities and promote peaceful relations between the Shawnee Nation and the United States. The commissioners plenipotentiary signing for the United States were G. Clark, Richard Butler, and Samuel H. Parsons. Aweecony, Kakawipilpathy, Malunthy, Musquaconocah, Meanymsecah, Waupaucowela, Nihipeewa, and Nihinessicoe, warriors and chiefs, signed on behalf of the Shawnee Nation. The treaty was concluded on the Ohio River at the mouth of the Miami River.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. January 9, 1789 Signed at Fort Harmar by the governor of the territory, Arthur St. Clair, this treaty redefines certain territorial boundaries (reservations) and seeks further regulation of trade. It is also an attempt to maintain a relative balance of friendship between the respective nations. The treaty was signed by twenty-eight leaders and warriors of the Sauk, Ottawa, Delaware, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Wyandot.

Treaty with the Six Nations January 9, 1789 This treaty was signed at Fort Harmar by Governor Arthur St. Clair for the purpose of settling boundaries, regulating trade, and promoting good relations between the tribes and the United States. The Mohawks were not involved in the settlement of this treaty. However, twenty-four leaders and warriors of the five other confederated nations signed.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Six Nations – November 11, 1794

287

Treaty with the Creeks August 7, 1790 A peace treaty concluded in New York City, this treaty stipulates conditions for friendship. Henry Knox, the secretary of war, signed on behalf of the United States. Alexander McGillivray signed for the Creek along with twenty-three other leaders and warriors of the Creek Nation.

Treaty with the Cherokee July 2, 1791 Also called the Treaty of Holston, this treaty was designed to establish a lasting peace between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. It was signed by Governor William Blount, a superintendent of Indian affairs, on the part of the United States, and by forty-one chiefs and warriors of the Cherokee Nation at the Holston River near the mouth of the French Broad.

Treaty with the Cherokee June 26, 1794 This treaty serves as an addendum to the Treaty of Holston. It dictates that the treaty of July 1791 is binding, stipulates a better marking and enforcement of boundaries, and alters the annuity agreement between the Cherokee and the United States. It was signed in Philadelphia by Secretary of War Henry Knox and thirteen members of the Cherokee Nation.

Treaty with the Six Nations November 11, 1794 On November 11, 1794, the United States entered into the Canandaigua, or Pickering, Treaty with the Six Nations of the Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee; these nations include the Seneca, the Cayuga, the Onondaga, the Oneida, the Mohawk, and the Tuscarora. This document is esteemed highly by the Haudenosaunee because it promises peace and friendship in perpetuity between the United States and the Iroquois Confederacy as well as clearly acknowledging the sovereignty of the Six Nations. The principal negotiators of the Canandaigua Treaty were Fish Carrier (Cayuga), Clear Sky

www.abc-clio.com

Timothy Pickering, while U.S. secretary of war (1795–1800), negotiated the Canandaigua treaty with the Haudenosaunee, represented mainly by the Seneca, in 1794. (Library of Congress)

(Onondaga), Red Jacket (Seneca), Farmer’s Brother (Seneca), Little Billy (Seneca), and Cornplanter (Seneca). The United States was represented by Colonel Timothy Pickering and General Israel Chapin, and several Quakers attended to act as mediators at the behest of the Senecas. This treaty was needed because of ongoing aggression between the colonies, now the United States, and the Six Nations. The Six Nations had initially taken a position of neutrality in the American Revolution, but smaller factions of Iroquois were persuaded to fight with the British against the colonists. The result was enmity toward the Haudenosaunee after the war ended, particularly embodied in George Washington’s campaign to burn more than fifty Iroquois villages, for which he earned the name Town Destroyer. At the same time, there was tension between nations farther west and the American settlers, and the relationship between settlers and Natives in the Finger Lakes region was growing strained. If the Six Nations joined the Northwestern Confederacy of Indians, the stability of the new

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

288

Treaty with the Oneida, Etc. – December 2, 1794

also able to negotiate for lands that had been ceded in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix and to confirm the rest of their landholdings in the face of impending white expansion. The United States and the tribes affirmed peace and international friendship in the treaty, and both parties signed it on November 11, 1794. Despite violations of the treaty, including the building of the Kinzua Dam in 1964, which flooded more than nine thousand acres of Seneca land in Pennsylvania and New York, this treaty has never been broken; the Haudenosaunee still receive trade cloth from the U.S. government as agreed in 1794, symbolizing the treaty’s continued recognition by the United States. Because this treaty so directly recognizes the sovereignty and right to self-determination of the Six Nations, the tribes have used this treaty on several occasions to advocate for Iroquois rights. Each year, on November 11, delegates from each of the Six Nations and the state (and sometimes federal) government gather to acknowledge the pledge of goodwill set forth in this document. Penelope M. Kelsey See also Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778. References and Further Reading Jemison, G. Peter, and Anna Schein, eds. 2000. The Canandaigua Treaty, 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The American Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle Books. Originally published 1960 by Harper and Brothers, New York. Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977. Indian Wars. Houghton Mifflin.

Portrait of Red Jacket (c. 1758–1830), late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Seneca leader. (Library of Congress)

American nation would be gravely threatened; thus, Washington was especially anxious to affirm Haudenosaunee friendship. General Israel Chapin called for a treaty meeting to be held in September 1794 in Canandaigua (“The Chosen Spot”) in the heart of Seneca territory, where Sullivan and Denonville had burned numerous villages in recent memory. An estimated sixteen hundred Haudenosaunee were in attendance. Red Jacket opened negotiations with the following statement: “Brothers, we, the Sachems of the Six Nations will now tell our minds. The business of this treaty is to brighten the Chain of Friendship between us and the fifteen fires. We told you the other day it was but a small piece that was the occasion of the remaining trust in the Chain of Friendship.” This allusion to trust refers to the plans to build two four-mile-wide roads between Fort Schlosser and Buffalo Creek and between Cayuga Creek and Buffalo Creek. The two sides were able to reach a settlement in which the first road was built but not the second. The tribes were

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Oneida, Etc. December 2, 1794 This treaty was intended to apply to the Oneida and to the Tuscorora and Stockbridge Indians living on Oneida land. The purpose of the treaty was to fulfill

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chickasaw – October 24, 1801

previous material obligations to these peoples based on their assistance during the war with England. Timothy Pickering signed for the United States, and eleven chiefs signed the treaty.

289

Benjamin Hawkins, George Clymer, and Andrew Pickens on behalf of the United States and by 122 Creeks.

Treaty with the Mohawk March 29, 1797

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. August 3, 1795 This treaty was established to facilitate peace between the Wyandot, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankashaw, and Kaskaskia tribes and the United States. The treaty was concluded at Greenville, Ohio, headquarters of the U.S. Army troops under Major General Anthony Wayne. The treaty provisions included land cessions by the tribes and by the United States. It stipulated that annuities be provided by the United States to the tribes, opened trade, and negated previous treaties between these tribes and the United States. It was signed by General Anthony Wayne on behalf of the United States and by ten Wyandot, seventeen Delaware, nine Shawnee, seven Ottawa, eleven Chippewa, twentyfour Potawatomi, five Miami and Eel River, three Wea, and three Kickapoo and Kaskaskia.

This treaty, concluded in Albany, is a land cession by the Mohawks to the State of New York for $1,000. The treaty was signed by Commissioner Isaac Smith on behalf of the United States. The document was signed by five others, including Joseph Brandt.

Agreement with the Seneca September 15, 1797 This is a contract between the Seneca Nation and one Robert Morris for the sale of land. As part of this contract, certain lands were reserved for the use of the Seneca people. This agreement was sanctioned by the U.S. government. The document was signed by Robert Morris and fifty-two Seneca leaders and warriors, including Handsome Lake, Young King, Red Jacket, and Corn Planter.

Treaty with the Cherokee

Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada

October 2, 1798

May 31, 1796 Concluded in New York City, Commissioner Abraham Ogden held the meeting for the cession of lands to New York State. Chiefs Ohnaweio (Goodstream) and Teharagwanegen (Thomas Williams) of the Caghnawaga, Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis Cook) of the St. Regis Indians, and William Gray represented the Seven Nations. This treaty also created a reservation for the village of St. Regis.

Initially organized on Holston River in July 1791 and in Philadelphia in 1794, this treaty was intended to renew previous peace contracted between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. It arranged for the cession of some Cherokee lands and required that the Kentucky Road remain open, and Cherokee people retained the right to hunt on the lands ceded. George Walton and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Butler were appointed commissioners for the treaty process. The treaty was concluded near Tellico, within Cherokee boundaries, and signed by thirtynine members of the Cherokee Nation.

Treaty with the Creeks June 29, 1796 Concluded at Colerain in New York, this treaty was intended to establish a lasting peace between the Creek Nation and the United States. It provided for the establishment of military posts and the release of prisoners and established a fixed boundary with the Choctaw and Chickasaw. The treaty was signed by

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chickasaw October 24, 1801 Signed at Chickasaw Bluffs, this is a treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw Nation. In the treaty, the Chickasaw allowed the building of a road, and the United States pledged protection to the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

290

Treaty with the Choctaw – December 17, 1801

Chickasaw people. Brigadier General James Wilkinson, Benjamin Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens signed as commissioners on behalf of the United States. The document was signed by twenty-one others, including William McGillivray, George Colbert, and Samuel Mitchell, the Chickasaw agent.

Reservation in full. This treaty assembly convened at Buffalo Creek, New York.

Treaty with the Choctaw October 17, 1802

Treaty with the Choctaw December 17, 1801 This was a contract for peace and friendship between the Choctaw Nation and the United States. It was also an agreement to make a roadway through Choctaw lands. The treaty was signed at Fort Adams by General James Wilkinson, Benjamin Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by sixteen members of the Iroquois Confederacy and the Choctaw Nation.

Treaty with the Creeks June 16, 1802 Signed near Fort Wilkinson, this treaty was a Creeks land cession. It also allowed for the construction of garrisons on Creeks land. The document was signed by General James Wilkinson, Agent Benjamin Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens for the United States and by forty-five leaders and warriors of the Creek Nations.

Treaty with the Seneca

Signed on the Tombigbee River at Fort Confederation, this treaty marks a land cession by the Choctaw to the United States. General James Wilkinson signed for the United States. Ten Choctaw leaders and warriors signed for the Choctaw Nation.

Treaty with the Delaware, Etc. June 7, 1803 This treaty was entered into the by the Delaware, Shawnee, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankashaw, and Kaskaskia Nations and by the United States. It was signed on Miami Lake at Fort Wayne by William Henry Harrison on behalf of the United States and by Little Turtle of the Miami Nation and fourteen other representatives of the concerned tribes. Both the tribes and the United States relinquished tracts of land, which included the post at St. Vincennes and the salt springs on the Saline Creek. The tribes ceded the salt springs upon an agreement that the United States would deliver salt to them each year. The treaty provided for the United States to build houses of entertainment along two main roads for the purpose of entertaining travelers.

Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.

June 30, 1802 In this agreement, the Seneca ceded lands and redefined boundaries. The treaty meeting took place at Buffalo Creek, Ontario County, New York. The treaty was signed by Corn Planter, Young King, Red Jacket, and sixteen other Seneca leaders and warriors. It was also signed by nine members of the City of Amsterdam and by Agent Joseph Ellicott.

August 7, 1803 This treaty was between the United States and the Eel River, Wyandot, Piankashaw, Kaskaskia, and Kickapoo tribes. It was signed at Fort Wayne by William Henry Harrison and ten tribal representatives. The treaty ceded to the United States three tracts of land between Vincennes and Kaskaskia and one between Vincennes and Clarksville, to be used for building houses of entertainment for travelers.

Treaty with the Seneca June 30, 1802 Signed by Oliver Phelps, Isaac Bronson, and Horatio Jones on one part and by Corn Planter, Young King, Red Jacket, and nine other Seneca men on the other, this treaty documents the cession of Little Beard’s

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Kaskasia August 13, 1803 This treaty was signed by William Henry Harrison and six Kaskaskia leaders and warriors at Vincennes

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chickasaw – July 23, 1805

in Indiana Territory. Treaty settlements included the cession of Kaskaskia lands, increased annuities, money to build a church, a new house for the chief, and enclosed fields for the tribe. The treaty indicated that the Kaskaskia retained hunting privileges on the ceded lands.

291

Killer, Tagustiskee, Tulio, Sour Much, Keatechee, and James Vann signed for the Cherokee.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox November 3, 1804

Treaty with the Choctaw August 31, 1803 This treaty determined territorial boundaries after a cession by the Choctaw Nation. The treaty was concluded at Hoe-Buckin-too-pa and signed by General James Wilkinson, Mingo Pooscoos, and Alatala Hooma.

Treaty with the Delaware

A treaty between the United States and the Sauk and Fox, this document was concluded at St. Louis in the Louisiana District. It concerned land cessions, new boundaries, trade regulations, Sauk and Fox hunting rights on ceded lands, the foundation of a military post, and a trading house. Another aim of the treaty was to secure peaceful terms between the United States and the Sauk and Fox. William Henry Harrison signed on behalf of the United States. Layauvois, Pashepaho, Hahshequarhiqua, Quashquame, and Outchequaka signed as leaders of the Sauk and Fox.

August 18, 1804 This treaty provides for an increased annuity, clarifies Delaware rights to certain lands, requires the return of stolen horses, and holds the United States responsible for persuading the Piankashaw to recognize Delaware title. This document was signed at Vincennes by William Henry Harrison and five Delaware leaders.

Treaty with the Piankeshaw August 27, 1804 This treaty, signed at Vincennes, related to Piankeshaw land cession. The Piankeshaw agreed to cede certain lands and retained the right to sell further portions of their land. A ten-year annuity to the tribe was agreed upon. The treaty was signed by William Henry Harrison on behalf of the United States and by five Piankeshaw leaders.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. July 4, 1805 This treaty was between the Wyandot, Chippewa, Munsee and Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, and Potawatomi Indians and the United States. It involves Indian land cession and annuities to be provided by the United States, and established tribal rights to use ceded lands for the procurement of game. Charles Jouett signed as a commissioner of the United States. The document was signed by two Potawatomi, seven Wyandot, four Shawnee, nine Ottawa, four Munsee and Delaware, and six Chippewa leaders and warriors.

Treaty with the Chickasaw July 23, 1805

Treaty with the Cherokee October 24, 1804 This treaty was made between the United States and the Cherokee Nation regarding a land cession and annuity arrangements. It was concluded on Cherokee land in the garrison at Tellico. Daniel Smith and Return J. Meigs signed for the United States; Tolluntuskie, Broom, J. McLamore, Quotequeskee, Path

www.abc-clio.com

Concluded on Chickasaw land, this treaty provided for the cession of Chickasaw lands. It arranged for the appointment of a commissioner to determine boundaries and forbade American settlement on remaining Chickasaw lands. It was signed by Silas Dinsmoor and James Robertson on behalf of the United States and by George Colbert, William McGillivray, and eight other Chickasaw leaders and warriors.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

292

Treaty with the Delaware, Etc. – August 21, 1805

Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.

other Cherokee men. The treaty included a land cession and the use of a road for transporting mail.

August 21, 1805 This was a treaty between the United States and the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, and Wea Nations. The treaty provides for Delaware and Miami land cessions. It also requires a permanent increase in the annuity received by the Miami Nation. Concluded at Grouseland, Indiana Territory, this treaty was signed for the United States by Governor William Henry Harrison. Nineteen men of the tribes involved signed, including Little Turtle and William Anderson.

Treaty with the Creeks November 14, 1805 Concluded at Washington, this was a treaty between the Creek Nations and the United States. It involved a land cession, the establishment of new boundaries and a military post, the opening of a road to the United States, and organization of annuity payments to the Creek Nations. It was signed by Henry Dearborn, the secretary of war, and Oche Haujo, William McIntosh, Tuckenehau Chapco, Tuckenehau, Enehau Thlucco, and Chekopeheke Emanthau.

Treaty with the Sioux September 23, 1805 This treaty was ratified in April 1808 but never put forth by the president beyond the Senate. The treaty documented a meeting between the United States and the Sioux Nation. It established a land cession of nine square miles at the mouth of the St. Croix River and also a tract along the Mississippi between St. Peters River and the falls at St. Anthony. This land cession was valued at $2,000. The Sioux retained hunting rights and so forth on the ceded land. The document was signed by Zebulon M. Pike for the United States and Le Petit Carbeau and Way Aga Enogee.

Treaty with the Choctaw November 16, 1805 This treaty marked a land cession and the establishment of a reservation, stipulating new boundaries. It was concluded at Mount Dexter, Pooshapukanuk, on Choctaw land. It was signed by James Robertson and Silas Dinsmoor for the United States and by twenty-three Choctaw men.

Treaty with the Piankashaw December 30, 1805

Treaty with the Cherokee October 25, 1805 Concluded at Tellico, this treaty was between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. With this treaty, the Cherokee ceded lands in return for payment from the United States. New boundaries were therefore determined, and specific roads were opened to travel for U.S. citizens. Return J. Meigs and Daniel Smith signed on behalf of the United States. More than thirty Cherokee representatives signed the treaty.

This treaty is a land cession made in return for annuities as compensation. The Piankashaw maintain hunting and similar rights on the ceded land. Concluded at Vincennes, Indiana Territory, the treaty was signed by Governor William Henry Harrison and Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), Pauquia (Montour) and Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir) of the Piankashaw.

Treaty with the Cherokee January 7, 1806

Treaty with the Cherokee October 27, 1805 This treaty was signed at Tellico by Return J. Meigs and Daniel Smith, representatives of the United States. It was also signed by Black Fox and fourteen

www.abc-clio.com

Concluded at Washington, this treaty was another Cherokee land cession in return for payment. As part of the treaty negotiations, the United States was to inform and insist upon recognition of the new boundaries by the Chickasaw Nation. The treaty was signed by Henry Dearborn on behalf of the United States and by seventeen Cherokee men.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. – July 22, 1814

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc. November 17, 1807 This treaty included land cessions, new boundaries, and annuity arrangements, and it preserved the tribes’ rights to hunt and carry on other activities on the ceded lands. It also created reservations. Concluded in Detroit, the treaty was signed by Governor William Hull, seventeen Chippewa leaders, five Ottawa leaders, five Potawatomi leaders, and three Wyandot leaders.

293

ment for annuities. It required the approval of the Wea Indians and was designed to implement measures against trespassing. The treaty also required the agreement of the Kickapoo Indians, who had close relations with these tribes. Concluded at Fort Wayne, the treaty was signed by Governor William Henry Harrison on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by five Delaware, ten Potawatomi, five Miami (including Little Turtle), and three Eel River leaders.

Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc. Treaty with the Osage

September 30, 1809

November 10, 1808

Concluded separately from the treaty with the Delaware, etc., this treaty was also concluded at Fort Wayne. It provided for additional compensation for the Miami and Eel River Indians, as they relinquished a majority of the lands ceded in the treaty with the Delaware, etc. This supplemental treaty was signed by Governor William Henry Harrison and by Little Turtle and eight other Eel River and Miami leaders.

This treaty allowed for the building of a fort, specified goods to be furnished, established new boundaries and protection of hunting grounds, and required the Osage to refrain from supplying arms to tribes in conflict with the United States. Concluded at Fort Clark in Louisiana Territory, this treaty was signed by Peter Chouteau, agent to the Osage, Captain E. B. Clemson, Lieutenant L. Lorimer, and Reazen Lewis on behalf of the United States. It was signed in November by 111 Osage men. The following August, it was signed in St. Louis by fifteen more Osage leaders.

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. November 25, 1808 Concluded at Brownstown, Michigan Territory, this treaty was between the United States and the Chippewa, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Wyandot, and Shawnee Nations. The treaty was a land cession obtained for the purpose of building a road. The tribes retained hunting and fishing rights on the ceded land. The treaty was signed by Governor William Hull on behalf of the United States and by four Chippewa, two Ottawa, three Potawatomi, four Wyandot, and two Shawnee.

Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.

October 26, 1809 This treaty was the result of a meeting at Vincennes, Indiana Territory. Signed by William Henry Harrison for the United States and by nine leaders of the Wea, this treaty was an agreement by the Wea to comply with the treaty signed at Fort Wayne with the Delaware, Miami, Eel River, and Potawatomi Nations.

Treaty with the Kickapoo December 9, 1809 This treaty was between the United States and the Kickapoo Nation. As a part of the treaty, the Kickapoo ceded lands to the United States in return for annuity payments and agreed to a portion of the September 30, 1809, treaty at Fort Wayne. It was signed by Governor William Henry Harrison and five Kickapoo leaders.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.

September 30, 1809 This treaty was made between the United States and the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, and Eel River Miami Indians. It was a land cession and arrange-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Wea

July 22, 1814 This was a treaty of peace between the United States and the Wyandot, Delaware, Shawnee, Seneca, and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

294

Treaty with the Creek – August 9, 1814

Miami Nations. It stipulated boundaries and pledged alliance against Great Britain in the War of 1812. Concluded at Greenville, Ohio, it was signed by William Henry Harrison and Lewis Cass for the United States and by Crane (Tarhe) and twelve other Wyandot, sixteen Delaware, Corn Stalk and thirteen other Shawnee, five Ottawa, and thirteen Seneca.

Treaty with the Teton

Treaty with the Creeks

Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes

August 9, 1814 Concluded at Fort Jackson, Alabama, this treaty was designed to reestablish friendly relations with the Creek Nations. It was designed to chastise the Creeks, who had opposed the United States and aided the British during the war. It established military posts, effected a land cession, and required a break in relations between the Creek Nations and the Spanish and British. It also called for the Creeks to give up those (prophets, etc.) who had advocated fighting the United States. The treaty was signed by Major General Andrew Jackson on behalf of the United States and by thirty-six Creeks representatives.

July 19, 1815 This treaty reestablished peace between the Teton and the United States. It was concluded at Portage des Sioux. William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States. Nine Teton leaders also signed the treaty.

July 19, 1815 Signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau, this is another treaty to reestablish peace. Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes was signed by Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), Haisanwee (Horn), Aampahaa (Speaker), Narcesagata (the Hard Stone), and Haibohaa (Branching Horn).

Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River July 19, 1815

Treaty with the Potawatomi July 18, 1815 This treaty was designed to reestablish friendship and peace. It was concluded at Portage des Sioux between the United States and the Potawatomi Nation. William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States. Six Potawatomi leaders signed as well.

This was one of a series of treaties concluded at Portage des Sioux at this time. Signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau, it was designed to reestablish peace. Enigmanee (Flies as He Walks), Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), Champisaba (Black War Club), Manpinsaba (Black Cloud), Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), and Nankanandee signed on behalf of the Sioux.

Treaty with the Yankton Sioux July 19, 1815

Treaty with the Piankashaw July 18, 1815 Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this treaty is between the United States and the Piankashaw Nation. It was designed to reestablish peace and friendship and to reconfirm previous treaties. It was signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States. La-ma-noan (the Axe), La-mee-pris-jeau (Sea Wolf), Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), Wa-pan-gia (Swan), and Namaing-sa (the Fish) signed on behalf of the Piankashaw.

www.abc-clio.com

One of a series concluded at Portage des Sioux by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau, this treaty was designed to reestablish peace and friendship between the Yankton and the United States. Eleven Yankton leaders signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Makah July 20, 1815 One of a series of treaties signed at Portage des Sioux under William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Iowa – September 16, 1815

Chouteau, this treaty was intended to reestablish peace and friendship with the Makah. The treaty was signed by seven Makah leaders.

Treaty with the Kickapoo

295

granted by the Treaty of St. Louis of 1804. It also provided for annuities. It required that the Sauk on the Missouri River remain separate from those who fought against the United States. The treaty was signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau for the United States and by twelve leaders of the Missouri River Sauk Indians.

September 2, 1815 This was a treaty to reestablish peace and friendship between the United States and the Kickapoo Nation and to reaffirm former treaties. It was concluded at Portage des Sioux and signed by ten Kickapoo representatives and by William Clark and two other U. S. representatives.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. September 8, 1815 This treaty was between the Wyandot, Delaware, Seneca, Shawnee, Miami, Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi Nations and the United States. The treaty was concluded at Spring Wells, Ohio, and was intended to reestablish peaceful relations. It pardoned these tribes for their alliance with Great Britain during the war. William Henry Harrison, Duncan McArthur, and John Graham signed as representatives of the United States. Seven Wyandot, eight Shawnee, eleven Ottawa, one Winnebago, ten Chippewa, seven Delaware, four Seneca, twenty-five Potawatomi, and eighteen Miami leaders signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Fox September 14, 1815 This was a treaty reestablishing peace between the United States and the Fox Indians. It required the Fox to return prisoners taken during hostilities and to agree to the Treaty of St. Louis of 1804. It was concluded at Portage des Sioux and signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. Twenty-two leaders of the Fox Nation signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Iowa September 16, 1815 Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this treaty was intended to reestablish peace and friendship between the Iowa and the United States. The U.S. representatives signing the treaty were William

Treaty with the Osage September 12, 1815 This was a treaty of peace concluded at Portage des Sioux. It was signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau for the United States and by twenty-four men of the Osage.

Treaty with the Sauk September 13, 1815 This was a treaty of peace between the Sauk Nation on the Missouri River and the United States and was concluded at Portage des Sioux. During the war, this group of Sauk had left the rest of the Sauk Nation to avoid fighting the United States. The treaty guaranteed this portion of the Sauk Nation the privileges

www.abc-clio.com

White Cloud, also known as Ma-hos-kah, an Iowa chief. This lithograph is based upon a portrait by Charles Bird King that was commissioned by Thomas McKenney, the superintendent of Indian affairs. The painting is c. 1820, some years after the treaty with the Iowa was forged September 16, 1815. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

296

Treaty with the Kansa – October 28, 1815

Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. Sixteen Iowa representatives signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Kansa October 28, 1815 This treaty was intended to reestablish peace between the United States and the Kansa Indians. Concluded at St. Louis, the treaty was signed by Ninian Edwards and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States and by eighteen leaders of the Kansas Nation.

Treaty with the Cherokee March 22, 1816 This treaty marked a land cession by the Cherokee to South Carolina and stipulated that South Carolina pay $5,000 for the cession. The treaty was concluded in Washington; George Graham represented the United States. The treaty was also signed by Colonel John Lowry, Major John Walker, Major Ridge, Richard Taylor, John Ross, and Cheucunsene.

Treaty with the Cherokee March 22, 1816 This treaty determined the boundaries of the land cession and granted the United States the right to build in the Cherokee Nation. It also stipulates that the Cherokee were to be granted indemnity in relation to U.S. operations on Cherokee land. Concluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by George Graham, Colonel John Lowry, Major John Walker, Major Ridge, Richard Taylor, John Ross, and Cheucunsene.

June 1, 1816 This was a treaty to reestablish peace and friendship between the United States and eight bands of Sioux. It was concluded at St. Louis and signed on behalf of the United States by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. It was also signed by forty Sioux representatives.

Treaty with the Winnebago June 3, 1816 Concluded at St. Louis, this treaty was intended to reestablish peaceful relations between the United States and the Winnebago of Ouisconsin River. It required the tribe to return prisoners taken during hostilities and reaffirmed former treaties made with the United States. It also called for the continued separation of the Winnebago on Ouisconsin River from the rest of their nation. This treaty was signed on behalf of the United States by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. Eleven leaders of the Ouisconsin River Winnebago signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo June 4, 1816 Concluded at Fort Harrison, Indiana Territory, this treaty of peace also reaffirmed the land cession of December 1809. Benjamin Parke signed for the United States, nine men signed for the Wea tribe (including two Miami men), and eleven leaders signed for the Kickapoo Nation.

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.

Treaty with the Sauk

August 24, 1816

May 13, 1816 Concluded at St. Louis, this treaty was intended to reestablish peace between the United States and the Rock River Sauk, who fought the United States during the war with Great Britain. It also reaffirmed the 1804 Treaty of St. Louis. The treaty was signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States. Twentytwo Rock River Sauk also signed the treaty.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sioux

This treaty was between the United States and the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes along the Milwaukee Rivers and the southwestern parts of Lake Michigan. It addressed concerns regarding a dispute over the land cession of the Sauk and Fox in 1804. It was signed at St. Louis by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau for the United States and by twenty-seven representatives of the tribes.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. – September 29, 1817

297

Treaty with the Cherokee

Treaty with the Oto

September 14, 1816

June 24, 1817

This document was both a treaty of peace and a land cession by the Cherokee. It set up boundaries and arranged for a meeting between the Cherokee, Generals Andrew Jackson and David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin at a council at Turkey’s Town on the Coosa River later the same month. The treaty was signed for the United States by Andrew Jackson, David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin. Toochalar, Oohulookee, Wososey, Gousa, Spring Frog, Oowatata, John Beuge, John Bawldridge, Sallocooke Fields, George Guess, Bark, Campbell, Spirit, Young Wolf, and Oolitiskee signed on behalf of the Cherokee.

This treaty was designed to reestablish peaceful relations after the war with England. The treaty was signed by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States and by twelve Oto and five Missouri.

Treaty with the Chickasaw

Treaty with the Ponca June 25, 1817 The purpose of this treaty was to reestablish friendly relations between the United States and the Ponca after the War of 1812. The treaty was signed by Auguste Chouteau and William Clark on behalf of the United States and by eight representatives of the Ponca Nation.

September 20, 1816 This treaty renewed friendship, ceded lands to the United States, and reserved certain lands for use of the Chickasaw. It also obligated the United States to give gifts to the Chickasaw and ended the licensing of merchants to the Chickasaw Nation. Andrew Jackson, David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin signed for the United States, and twenty-three representatives signed on behalf of the Chickasaw Nation at the Chickasaw council house.

Treaty with the Choctaw

Treaty with the Cherokee July 8, 1817 This treaty arranged for the cession of certain lands in exchange for others and also for an additional cession of land. Under the treaty arrangements, a census would be taken of the Cherokee Nation, and lands would be set aside for the heads of Cherokee families. The treaty was signed by Andrew Jackson, Joseph McMinn (governor of Tennessee), and David Meriwether on behalf of the United States and by forty-six Cherokee representatives.

October 24, 1816 This treaty was a land cession by the Choctaw to the United States. It was concluded at the Choctaw trading house and signed by thirteen representatives of the Choctaw Nation and by John Coffee, John Rhea, and John M’Kee representing the United States.

Treaty with the Menominee March 30, 1817 Concluded at St. Louis, this was a treaty to renew peace and friendship. William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States. Ten leaders of the Menominee also signed.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. September 29, 1817 This treaty entailed the cession of lands by the Wyandot, Potawatomi, Ottawa, and Chippewa Nations and grants to be distributed by the United States to the Wyandot, Seneca, Shawnee, and Ottawa as well as specified individuals. It provided for the division of lands and dealt with issues of hunting, building, taxes, and education. The treaty was concluded at the Rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie. It was signed by Lewis Cass and Duncan Arthur on behalf of the United States and by numerous representatives of the Wyandot, Seneca, Shawnee, Delaware, Potawatomi, Ottawa, and Chippewa Nations.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

298

Agreement with the Piankeshaw – January 3, 1818

iouche (Wearer of Shoes), representatives of the Pawnee Republic.

Agreement with the Piankeshaw January 3, 1818 This was an agreement between Governor Thomas Posey, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Chekommia (Big River), principal chief of the Piankeshaw tribe. The treaty was concluded at Vincennes.

Treaty with the Creeks January 22, 1818 Concluded on the Flint River at the Creek agency, this treaty arranged the cession of lands in return for payment from the United States and set boundaries. David Brydie Mitchell, agent to the Creeks, signed for the United States. Eighteen representatives of the Creek Nations signed the treaty.

Treaty with the Grand Pawnee

Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar June 22, 1818 This treaty establishes peaceful relations with the United States. It was concluded at St. Louis and signed by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by twelve Pawnee representatives.

Treaty with the Quapaw August 24, 1818 This treaty arranged for the cession of Quapaw lands and the organization of a reservation. It also stipulated the distribution of annuities to the tribe. William Clark and Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States, and thirteen leaders signed for the Quapaw. The treaty was concluded at St. Louis.

June 18, 1818 This treaty of peace and friendship was concluded at St. Louis. William Clark and Auguste Chouteau signed as representatives of the United States. Sixteen representatives of the Grand Pawnee signed as well.

Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee June 19, 1818 This was a treaty of peace concluded at St. Louis. It was signed by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau, representatives of the United States, and by nine representatives of the Pawnee.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. September 17, 1818 This treaty set forth stipulations for the Wyandot Reservation and provided for an additional reservation for the Shawnee, Seneca, and Wyandot. Concluded at the rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass and Duncan McArthur on behalf of the United States and by numerous representatives of the Ottawa, Shawnee, Wyandot, and Seneca tribes.

Treaty with the Pawnee Republic

Treaty with the Wyandot

June 20, 1818

Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, this treaty arranged for a land cession by the Wyandot Nation. It also set forth restrictions on the use of the reservation lands of the Wyandot south of the Huron River. The treaty was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United States and by Ronesass (Honas), Haunsiaugh (Boyer), Ronaess (Racer), Ronioness (Joseph), Scoutash, Dunquod (Half King), Aronne (Cherokee Boy), and Taruntne (Between the Logs).

September 20, 1818

This treaty officially established peace and friendship between the Pawnee Republic and the United States. It was signed at St. Louis by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by Petaheick (Good Chief), Rarnleshare (Chief Man), Shernakitare (First in the War Party), Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer), Tearekatacaush (the Brave), Pa (the Elk), and Tetaw-

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Kickapoo – July 30, 1819

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc. September 25, 1818 Concluded at Edwardsville, Illinois, this treaty was a cession of land to the United States by the Peoria, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Tamarois tribes. The treaty also obligated the United States to leave 640 acres to the Peoria and to pay them for the cessions. It was signed by Ninian Edwards and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United States and by representatives of each tribe.

Treaty with the Osage September 25, 1818 This treaty was an Osage lands cession. Concluded at St. Louis, it was signed by Governor William Clark for the United States and by forty-five Osage representatives.

299

treaty also arranged for annuities and individual land grants for the Delaware. Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke signed on behalf of the United States. Nineteen representatives of the Delaware Nation also signed.

Treaty with the Miami October 6, 1818 Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, this treaty included land cession by the Miami, a portion of which was to be used for reservations, and required the Miami to recognize the Kickapoo cession. It also arranged for various grants. It was signed by Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke on behalf of the United States and by sixteen Miami representatives.

Treaty with the Chickasaw October 19, 1818

Treaty with the Potawatomi October 2, 1818 Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, this treaty was a cession of land to the United States by the Potawatomi; it also arranged for annuities and grants. As a part of this treaty, the United States bought the Kickapoo claim. Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke signed on behalf of the United States, and thirty-five representatives signed for the Potawatomi.

This treaty was intended to end disputes over boundaries and to establish peaceful relations. It included a Chickasaw land cession and arrangements for reservations and individual grants. It was signed at the treaty ground east of Old Town by twenty-one representatives of the Chickasaw Nation and by Isaac Shelby and Andrew Jackson on behalf of the United States.

Treaty with the Cherokee February 27, 1819

Treaty with the Wea October 2, 1818 This treaty was a land cession by the Wea to the United States and gained their approval of the 1809 Kickapoo cession. Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, the treaty was signed by Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke on behalf of the United States and by seven Wea representatives and two Kickapoo leaders.

Treaty with the Kickapoo

Treaty with the Delaware

July 30, 1819

October 3, 1818 With this treaty, the Delaware ceded all their lands in Indiana in exchange for lands set aside for them by the United States west of the Mississippi River. The

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty arranged for the further cession of lands by the Cherokee. It arranged for land grants, reservations, new boundaries, and annuities and prohibited intrusion onto remaining Cherokee lands. The treaty was signed at Washington by John C. Calhoun, secretary of war, and by twelve Cherokee representatives, including John Ross.

This treaty arranged for the cession of Kickapoo lands to the United States, new boundaries, and annuities. The Kickapoo were to relinquish former lands in return for $3,000 in merchandise and a

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

300

Treaty with the Kickapoo – August 30, 1819

land grant in Missouri. The United States was to furnish boats and other materials for the successful removal of the Kickapoo to the new lands. Concluded at Edwardsville, Illinois, the treaty was signed by Auguste Chouteau and Benjamin Stephenson on behalf of the United States and by twenty-three representatives of the Kickapoo Nation.

Treaty with the Kickapoo August 30, 1819 This treaty arranged for the Kickapoo cession of all lands on the Wabash River and in other areas, set new boundaries, and required the Kickapoo to relinquish a third of the payment by the United States agreed upon in the treaty the previous month. Concluded at Fort Harrison, the treaty was signed by Benjamin Parke on behalf of the United States and by Tecumcena, Kaahna, Macacanaw, La Ferine, Macatewaket, Pelecheah, Kechemaquaw, and Pacakinqua of the Kickapoo.

Okee-makee-quid, a Chippewa chief, as depicted in 1826 by Charles Bird King. (Getty Images)

Treaty with the Chippewa September 24, 1819 This treaty arranged for a cession of Chippewa lands to the United States and arranged for new boundaries, payments, reservation, and the retention of hunting and other rights on ceded lands. Concluded at Saginaw, Michigan Territory, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United States and by more than one hundred Chippewa representatives.

Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa July 6, 1820 This treaty marked the cession of St. Martin Island by the tribes and arranged for a payment in goods. Concluded at L’Arbre Croche and Michilimackinac, Michigan Territory, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United States and by twenty Chippewa and Ottawa leaders.

Treaty with the Chippewa June 16, 1820 This treaty arranged for further cession of Chippewa lands but granted the retention of fishing rights at the falls of St. Mary’s. Concluded at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Territory, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United States and by fifteen representatives of the Chippewa Nation.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Kickapoo July 19, 1820 This treaty was designed to alter the 1819 Kickapoo treaty at Edwardsville, Illinois. It was concluded at St. Louis and signed by Auguste Chouteau and Benjamin Stephenson on behalf of the United States and by twenty-eight Kickapoo representatives.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox – September 3, 1822

301

Treaty with the Wea

Treaty with the Creeks

August 11, 1820

January 8, 1821

This was a land cession by the Wea tribe, to be paid for with $5,000 in goods and money. The treaty also arranged for an annuity to be paid to the Kaskaskia Nation. Benjamin Parke signed on behalf of the United States, along with sixteen tribal representatives. The treaty was concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio.

This treaty was designed to help settle the Creeks debt claimed by the state of Georgia. Concluded at the Indian Springs, Creek Nation, the treaty was signed by J. McIntosh, David Adams, Daniel Newman, and William McIntosh for the United States and by Tustunnuggee Hopoie and Efau Emauthlau for the Creeks.

Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.

September 5, 1820

This treaty arranged for a further cession of lands from the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes. It also stipulated grants and reservations, allowed the United States to build a road, and maintained the rights of the tribes to hunt on the ceded lands. Concluded in Chicago, Illinois, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass and Solomon Sibley for the United States and by numerous representatives of the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes.

August 29, 1821

This treaty arranged for annuity payments to the Kickapoo tribe. Concluded at Vincennes, the treaty was signed by Benjamin Parke on behalf of the United States and by Wagohaw, Tecumsena, Pelecheah, Kechemaqua, Nasa Reah, Katewah, and Paca Rinqua on behalf of the Kickapoo.

Treaty with the Choctaw October 18, 1820 This treaty arranged a land cession by the Choctaw, who were being removed to lands set aside for them by the United States west of the Mississippi River. It stipulated payments, new boundaries, and the boundaries east of the Mississippi. It was also designed as a treaty of peace. Concluded at the treaty grounds of the Choctaw Nation, near Doak’s Stand on the Natchez Road, the treaty was signed by Major General Andrew Jackson and General Thomas Hinds on behalf of the United States and by numerous representatives of the Choctaw Nation.

Treaty with the Osage August 21, 1822 Concluded at the U.S. Factory on the M. De Cigue Augt. (Fort Clark on the Missouri), this document releases the United States from payments promised in the November 1808 treaty with the Osage in return for $2,329 in merchandise from the factory. The treaty was signed by Richard Graham on behalf of the United States and by twenty-two Osage representatives.

Treaty with the Creeks

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox

January 8, 1821

September 3, 1822

This treaty arranged for a Creeks land cession and for the reservation of certain lands. It stipulated a payment plan and also required the United States to pay the debts Georgia claimed against the Creeks. Concluded at the Indian Spring, Creek Nation, this treaty was signed by David Meriwether and Daniel M. Forney for the United States and by more than twenty Creeks representatives.

This treaty abrogated the ninth article of the treaty of November 1804. It released the United States from its agreement to open a factory for the tribes and to keep out traders who took advantage of the tribes. The treaty also required the United States to pay the Sauk and Fox $1,000 in merchandise from the factory. The agreement was signed at Fort Armstrong by Thomas Forsyth for the United States and by Pushee Paho,

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

302

Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians – September 18, 1823

Quash Quammee, Nesowakee, Keeocuck, Wapulla, Themue, Mucathaanamickee, and Nolo.

ities. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by William Clark for the United States and by Ma-hos-kah (White Cloud) and Mah-ne-hah-nah (Great Walker) of the Iowa tribe.

Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians September 18, 1823

Treaty with the Quapaw

This treaty arranged for the cession by the tribes of the Florida Territory, except for a district to be set aside for their residence and use. Under this treaty, the tribes were not allowed to aid fugitive slaves. They were to be allotted certain foods by the United States for one year and were placed under the supervision of an Indian agent. Concluded along Moultrie Creek, Florida Territory, the treaty was signed by William P. Duval, James Gadsden, and Bernard Segui on behalf of the United States and by thirty-two representatives of the Florida tribes.

November 15, 1824 This treaty arranged for the cession of Quapaw lands in the Arkansas Territory and restricted the Quapaw to living within the bounds of the Caddo tribe. The treaty required the United States to pay the head chiefs $2,000 and the tribe $4,000 in goods. Under this treaty, the Quapaw retained the right to hunt on ceded lands. Concluded at Harrington’s, Arkansas Territory, the document was signed by Robert Crittenden for the United States and by fifteen representatives of the Quapaw Nation.

Agreement with the Seneca

Treaty with the Choctaw

September 3, 1823

January 20, 1825

This treaty arranged for the cession of the Gordeau Reservation in Livingston and Genesee Counties. Concluded at Moscow, Livingston County, New York, this treaty was signed by John Greig and Henry B. Gibson for the United States and by nineteen representatives of the Seneca Nation.

This treaty arranged the cession of Choctaw lands, the payment of annuities, payment for the Pensacola campaign, and provisions for those Choctaw choosing not to leave. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by John C. Calhoun, U.S. secretary of war. Mooshulatubbee, Robert Cole, Daniel McCurtain, Talking Warrior, Red Fort, Nittuckachee, David Folsom, and J. L. McDonald signed as representatives of the Choctaw Nation.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox August 4, 1824 This treaty arranged for the cession of all Sauk and Fox lands within the borders of the state of Missouri. A small portion of this land was to be set aside for the use of mixed-blood Sauk and Fox. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by William Clark for the United States and by six Sauk and four Fox representatives.

Treaty with the Iowa August 4, 1824 This treaty arranged for the cession of lands within Missouri State borders and for the payment of annu-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Creeks February 12, 1825 Under the terms of this treaty, the Creeks ceded all land within the state of Georgia, land north and west of the Chatauhoochie River, and the reservations located at Indian Springs on the Ocmulgee River. In return, the Creeks were to receive land between the Arkansas and Canadian rivers equal to the number of acres ceded. The treaty was concluded at Indian Springs, Georgia. The signatories were Duncan G. Campbell, James Meriwether (both U. S. commissioners), William McIntosh (head chief

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe – July 6, 1825

of the Cowetau), and more than fifty other chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Osage

303

bade the distribution of guns to tribes hostile to the United States. Concluded at Fort Look-out, South Dakota, the treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon on behalf of the United States and by twenty-eight representatives of the Teton, Yankton, and Yanktonai.

June 2, 1825 Under the terms of this treaty, the Osage ceded all their land within the states of Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas and in the Indian Territory, except for a fifty-mile-wide tract of land in southern Kansas running from Fort Scott to Dodge. Concluded in St. Louis, the treaty was signed by William Clark, superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by Chief Claremont, Chief White Hair, and fifty-eight other representatives of the Osage.

Treaty with the Kansa June 3, 1825 Under the terms of this treaty, the Kansa ceded all remaining lands in Missouri, Kansas, and presentday Nebraska. In return, the Kansa would retain a tract of land thirty miles wide running from Topeka to Goodland. Concluded in St. Louis, the treaty was signed by William Clark for the United States and by twelve representatives of the Kansa.

Treaty with the Ponca

Agreement with the Creeks June 29, 1825 This was an agreement made with the Creek Nations at the council house in Broken Arrow. The agreement, signed in council by eleven Muscogee, dealt with issues of debt payment and the opposition to Creek laws by U.S. citizens. The agreement was not ratified.

Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes July 5, 1825 This treaty set forth stipulations for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Sioune and Oglala to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was concluded at the mouth of the Teton River. Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon signed for the United States, and six Sioune chiefs, three Sioune warriors, four Oglala chiefs, and four Oglala warriors signed for their people.

June 9, 1825 This treaty explained the U.S. government’s authority, protection, and power to regulate the trade of the Ponca and forbade the distribution of guns to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was concluded in Poncar Village at the mouth of White Paint Creek. The signatories were Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon for the United States and nineteen chiefs and headmen of the Ponca Nation.

Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux June 22, 1825 This treaty explained the U.S. government’s authority, protection, and power to regulate trade and for-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe July 6, 1825 This treaty set forth stipulations for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Cheyenne to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the United States. Concluded at the mouth of the Teton River, the treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by Chiefs Sho-e-mow-eto-chaw-ca-we-wah-ca-to-we (the Wolf with the High Back), We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Ta-tonca-pa (Buffalo Head), and J-a-pu (the One Who Walks against the Others), and nine Cheyenne warriors.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

304

Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe – July 16, 1825

Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe

O’Fallon for the United States and by seven Mandan chiefs, six warriors of the First Village, and six warriors of the Second Village.

July 16, 1825 This treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Sioux to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was concluded at Auricara Village and signed by Benjamin O’Fallon and Henry Atkinson for the United States. It was also signed by Mato-che-gal-lah (Little White Bear), Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that Has No Name), Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), Pah-sal-sa (Auricara), and Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk) on behalf of the Hunkapapa Sioux.

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe July 18, 1825 This treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Arikara to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the United States. Concluded at the Arikara village, this treaty was signed by Brigadier General Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon, U.S. agent of Indian affairs. It was also signed by six Arikara chiefs and fourteen warriors.

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe

Treaty with the Crow Tribe August 4, 1825 This treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Crow tribe to furnish guns and other items to tribes hostile to the United States. Concluded at the Mandan village, the treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon for the United States and by sixteen chiefs of the Crow Nation.

Treaty with the Great and Little Osage August 10, 1825 This treaty was designed to promote peaceful relations between the Osage, who resided along the intended course of a trade route to the Mexican Republic, and those who would travel the road, in return for payment of $500. Concluded at Council Grove, the treaty was signed by Benjamin H. Reeves, George C. Sibley, and Tomas Mather on behalf of the United States and by sixteen Osage representatives.

Treaty with the Kansa

July 30, 1825 Concluded at the Lower Mandan village, this treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Minitaree tribe to furnish guns and other items to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin O’Fallon for the United States and by nine Minitaree chiefs and sixteen warriors.

August 16, 1825 This treaty was designed to promote peaceful relations between the Kansa, who resided near the intended course of a trade route to the Mexican Republic, and those who would travel the road, in return for payment of $500. Concluded along the Sora Kansas Creek 238 miles southwest of Fort Osage, this treaty was signed by Benjamin H. Reeves, George C. Sibley, and Thomas Mather for the United States and by sixteen Kansa leaders.

Treaty with the Mandan Tribe July 30, 1825 This treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by the United States and forbade the Mandan tribe to furnish guns and other items to tribes hostile to the United States. Concluded at the Mandan village, the treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc. August 19, 1825 The actual title of this agreement is the Treaty with the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc. – August 19, 1825

Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawattomie Tribes (1825), also known as the Great Council at Prairie du Chien. In 1825, federal negotiators invited representatives of nearly a dozen different Indian nations of the Great Lakes to Prairie du Chien in present-day southwestern Wisconsin for what was described as a peace and friendship treaty. More than a thousand Native Americans attended the sixteen-day gathering. U.S. officials were anxious to end intertribal conflict, especially between the Ojibwe and the Dakota, which was seen as an impediment to white settlement and trade. Indian agents insisted that chiefs and headmen establish boundaries between each tribe. The demarcation of borders paved the way for future land cession treaties. The fur trade and other activities had created considerable enmity between the tribes in the Great Lakes. Along the Mississippi River, diplomacy between the Dakota and the Ojibwe had given way to continual attacks and reprisals. In the Fever River valley in present-day southeastern Wisconsin, the Ho-Chunk, Sac, and Fox Indians were at odds with more than ten thousand miners who had illegally invaded their territory. The Menominee were nervous about the arrival, several years earlier, of three New York tribes: the Oneida, the Mohican Nation Stockbridge-Munsee bands, and the Brothertown, who were trying to buy Menominee land. Representatives of the Great Lakes tribes viewed the council at Prairie du Chien as an opportunity to settle some of these disputes. At the council, General William Clark and Governor Lewis Cass insisted that the tribes declare their boundaries, an exercise that confused some of the Native leaders. Carimine, the HoChunk chief, expressed the sentiments of many tribal leaders at the gathering. Members of the Anishinabe Confederacy—Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa—were also reluctant to declare their borders. Chambly, an Odawa chief, told the gathering, “I never yet heard from my ancestors that any one had an exclusive right to the soil.” Eventually, with the exception of the Menominee, who were underrepresented at the conference, most of the tribes declared their territories and negotiated boundaries. Federal negotiators complained about the “dispersed condition” of tribes like the Ojibwe and the lack of principal chiefs with whom they could bargain. Each Ojibwe band had several clan leaders and headmen who “governed” by consent rather

www.abc-clio.com

305

than ruled by authority. The decentralized nature of the tribes represented at the treaty negotiations was evident in the number of signatures on the document. A total of forty-one Ojibwe, twenty-six Sioux, and twenty-nine Sac and Fox chiefs and headmen signed the treaty. Although at the time tribal leaders did not understand the implications of declaring boundaries, within a few years they began to realize what it meant. The U.S. government began to approach Indian nations individually and negotiate land cessions. In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, by which government officials began moving tribes located in the eastern portion of the United States to lands west of the Mississippi River. Officials first removed the Sac and Fox, then the Ho-Chunk, then the Potawatomi. Removal orders against the Ojibwe and Menominee were signed but never carried out. The “peace and friendship treaty” at Prairie du Chien had laid the groundwork for the disenfranchisement of thousands of indigenous people from their lands in the Great Lakes region. Patricia A. Loew

See also Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Chippewa–December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust Doctrine; Trust Lands. References and Further Reading Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1960. “Minutes of the 1825 Treaty at Prairie du Chien, August, 1825.” Documents Relating to the Negotiation of Ratified and Unratified Treaties with Various Tribes of Indians, 1801–1869, in Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, microfilm P97–2750, reel 1. Washington, DC: National Archives. Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Renewal. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society Press. Proclamation, “Treaty with the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawattomie, Tribes (1825),” 7 Stat. 272 (Feb. 6, 1826).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

306

Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes – September 26, 1825

Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes

Treaty with the Shawnee

September 26, 1825

This treaty was designed as a renewal of friendship and a Shawnee land cession. Concluded at St. Louis, the treaty recorded the cession of lands near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, taken over by citizens of the United States, in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi River purchased from the Osage for the Missouri and Ohio Shawnee. The United States agreed to pay the tribe $14,000 for the losses related to removal, $5,000 of which was to be paid in provisions upon arrival at the new lands. The treaty was signed by William Clark for the United States and by twelve Shawnee delegates.

November 7, 1825

Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate friendship between the Otoe and Missouri and the United States. It also put into place a negotiated justice system as it related to stolen property and personal conflicts. Under the trade regulations, the Otoe and Missouri were forbidden to trade weapons to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was signed by Major Benjamin O’Fallon, Indian agent, and Brigadier General Henry Atkinson on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by eighteen Otoe and Missouri representatives.

Treaty with the Creeks January 24, 1826

Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe September 30, 1825 Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate friendship between the Pawnee and the United States. It also put into place a negotiated justice system as it related to stolen property and personal conflicts. Under the trade regulations, the Pawnee were forbidden to trade weapons to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was signed by Major Benjamin O’Fallon, Indian agent, and Brigadier General Henry Atkinson on behalf of the United States. It was also signed by twenty-five Pawnee chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

Treaty with the Makah Tribe

This treaty nullified the Treaty of Indian Springs of February 12, 1825, which the majority of Creeks declared had been signed by individuals lacking authority to enter into treaty negotiations. Concluded at Washington, this new treaty arranged for the cession of Creek lands in Georgia along the Chatahoochie River and a tract along the boundary between Creek and Cherokee lands in Georgia, for $30,000. The Creek Nations agreed to send five representatives to inspect lands west of the Mississippi to find desirable lands to which to remove that were not possessed by the Choctaw or Cherokee or within the states or territories. The Creeks would then have two years to relocate, and the United States agreed to be responsible for expenses incurred and to provide one year’s subsistence. Secretary of War James Barbour represented the United States; thirteen representatives of the Creek Nations signed the treaty proper and the supplementary article.

October 6, 1825 Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate friendship between the Makah and the United States. Under the trade regulations, the Makah were forbidden to trade weapons to tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty also put into place a negotiated justice system as it related to stolen property and other conflicts. The treaty was signed by Major Benjamin O’Fallon, Indian agent, and Brigadier General Henry Atkinson on behalf of the United States. Fourteen Makah delegates also signed the treaty.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chippewa August 5, 1826 The parties to this treaty agreed to the treaty of August 1825 at Prairie du Chien between the Sioux and Chippewa. The treaty arranged for a meeting at Green Bay the following year and allocated land specifically for the use of individuals of mixed Chippewa and white descent, called for a $2,000 yearly annuity to the Chippewa, and appropriated

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Creeks – November 15, 1827

$1,000 to build a school and support an education program for the youth. The treaty was concluded at Fond du Lac of Lake Superior, Michigan Territory; it was signed by Lewis Cass and Thomas L. McKenney for the United States and by four St. Marys, eleven River St. Croix, five La Pointe, six Lac De Flambeau, twelve Ontonagon, nine Vermilion Lake, four Snake River, six Sandy Lake, ten Fond du Lac, seventeen River de Corbeau, one Rainy Lake, and one Ottawa.

Treaty with the Potawatomi October 16, 1826 This treaty involved the cession of Potawatomi lands, arranged a twenty-two-year annuity agreement of $2,000 to be paid in silver, with an additional $2,000 to be paid annually toward education for an indeterminate period of time. The treaty also arranged for a mill on the Tippecanoe River, and an annuity of 160 bushels of salt to be delivered by the Indian agent at Fort Wayne. The treaty also includes provisions relating to grants and hunting rights. Concluded in Indiana near the mouth of the Mississinewa on the Wabash River, this treaty was signed by more than sixty Potawatomi leaders and by Lewis Cass, John Tipton, and James Brown Ray on behalf of the United States.

307

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. August 11, 1827 Concluded on the Fox River at the Butte des Morts, Michigan Territory, this treaty settled the southern boundary of the Chippewa, which the treaty at Prairie du Chien in August 1825 had not determined. It also referred the territorial disputes between the Menominee, the Winnebago, and other New York tribes to the discretion of the president. Under the treaty, the tribes recognized the boundary established between U.S., French, and British jurisdictions. The treaty also arranged for the distribution of goods and an educational appropriation for the tribes. It also asserted that the United States maintained the right to punish certain Winnebago for previous offenses and to act to prevent further offenses. The treaty was signed by Lewis Cass and Thomas L. McKenney for the United States, by sixteen Chippewa representatives, and by more than twenty Menominee representatives.

Treaty with the Potawatomi September 19, 1827 This treaty organized a further cession of land by the Potawatomi tribe to consolidate the various bands in Michigan Territory in an area removed from the white population. This treaty was concluded at St. Joseph, Michigan Territory, and signed by Lewis Cass for the United States and by nineteen Potawatomi delegates.

Treaty with the Miami October 23, 1826 Concluded on the Wabash River near the mouth of the Mississinewa in Indiana, this treaty organized the cession of Miami lands in the state of Indiana north and west of the Miami and Wabash rivers, as well as the land ceded in the October 6, 1818, treaty with the Miami. Reservations were made of certain portions of the ceded lands. The treaty also arranged for the construction of a canal or road through these lands, payment in goods, and annuities; it preserved hunting rights on the ceded lands and provided $2,000 annually for an undetermined period of time to be used for education and the support of the unwell and the unfortunate. The treaty was signed by thirty-seven Miami chiefs and warriors and by Lewis Cass, James Brown Ray, and John Tipton for the United States.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Creeks November 15, 1827 This treaty arranged for the cession of all Creek lands not previously ceded within the state of Georgia. Under this agreement, the United States was obligated to pay the Creek Nations $27,491. It also arranged for a $15,000 payment, with $5,000 to be reserved for the education and support of the children at the Choctaw Academy in Kentucky; $1,000 to be appropriated for the support of the Withington station; $1,000 toward Asbury station; $2,000 for the construction of four horse mills; $1,000 for the purchase of carts and wheels; and $5,000 in blankets and other goods. Concluded at the Creek agency, the treaty was signed by Thomas L. McKenney and John

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

308

Treaty with the Miami – February 11, 1828

Cromwell for the United States and by Little Prince and five other Creeks representatives.

Treaty with the Miami February 11, 1828 This treaty was a cession of land at a village on Sugartree Creek in Indiana previously reserved in treaty to the tribe. In exchange for relinquishing these lands without destroying any improvements already on the lands, the United States was obligated to provide $2,000 in goods, with the promise of $8,000 in goods the succeeding summer. The United States also promised further provisions, including a provision for education, based on terms of ratification. Concluded in Indiana on the Wabash River at the Wyandot village, this treaty was signed by seventeen chiefs and warriors of the Miami of Eel River and Thorntown and by John Tipton, commissioner for the United States.

Treaty with the Western Cherokee May 6, 1828 Concluded at Washington, this treaty determined the western boundary of Arkansas and required

the Cherokee to cede all lands within the boundaries of Arkansas. The United States, in turn, promised seven million acres to the Cherokee west of the determined line and also promised to prevent the trespass of whites on that land. Under this treaty, the Cherokee were to be compensated for the value of improvements left behind on their land and for the cost of removal, which was to occur within fourteen months of the conclusion of the treaty. Thomas Graves, George Maw, George Guess, Thomas Marvis, and John Rogers signed the ratified treaty as chiefs of the Cherokee west of the Mississippi. The initial treaty was signed by John Barbour for the United States and by eight Cherokee leaders.

Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc. August 25, 1828 This treaty was between the United States and the Sac, Fox, Winnebago, Potawatomi, Ottawa, and Chippewa Nations. It established a provisional boundary between the United States and tribal lands. It also established a system for the United States to deal with white trespassers, miners in par-

The arrival by boat of Lewis Cass and Colonel McKenney at Butte des Morts, Wisconsin, 1827. Cass and McKenney signed the 1827 Treaty with the Chippewa at this site. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Delaware – September 24, 1829

ticular, on the Indian side of the provisional boundary and required the United States to compensate the tribes for white intrusions. Under the treaty, the United States was allowed to build two ferries over the Rock River and promised to distribute $20,000 in goods among the tribes at a future treaty meeting. Concluded at Greenbay, Michigan Territory, this treaty was signed by more than thirty Winnebago on behalf of the tribes and by Lewis Cass and Pierre Menard for the United States.

309

Treaty with the Winnebago August 1, 1829 This treaty arranged a Winnebago land cession and the compensation to be provided for that cession by the United States. It also provided for the establishment of three blacksmith shops, for the United States to pay claims against the tribe, and for individual land grants. It was signed by fortyfour Winnebago leaders and by John McNiel, Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater for the United States.

Treaty with the Potawatomi September 20, 1828 This treaty involved the cession of Potawatomi lands and arranged for individual land grants. It also arranged for a permanent annuity of $2,000; a twenty-year annuity of $1,000; $30,000 in goods; and $5,000 in currency to be paid to the tribe in 1829. An additional $7,500 was to be allocated for building, for the support of laborers, and for the purchase of animals and farming equipment. The treaty was concluded at the missionary establishments on the St. Joseph River in the Michigan Territory. It was signed by sixty-nine Potawatomi representatives and by Lewis Cass and Pierre Menard for the United States.

Treaty with the Delaware August 3, 1829 Concluded at Little Sandusky, Ohio, this treaty organized a Delaware land cession. Payment of $3,000 was to be made to the Delaware for the cession, $2,000 of which would be paid immediately and $1,000 in the form of provisions for the Delaware’s removal west of the Mississippi. The treaty was signed by Captain Pipe, William Matacur, Captain Wolf, Eli Pipe, Solomon Journeycake, Joseph Armstrong, and George Williams for the Delaware and by John McElvain for the United States.

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.

Treaty with the Delaware

July 29, 1829

September 24, 1829

This treaty was concluded at Prairie du Chien, Michigan Territory. It was an agreement between the United States and the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Ottawa Nations for land cessions to the United States. In return, the United States agreed to deliver $12,000 worth of goods in October of the same year and permanently to pay the tribes $16,000 annually in currency along with fifty barrels of salt. Certain portions of the cessions were to be reserved for particular bands. The treaty arranged for individual land grants, reserved hunting rights for the tribes, and assumed responsibility for payment of claims against the tribes. The treaty was signed by U.S. delegates John McNiel, Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater. Thirty-five tribal representatives also signed.

This treaty was supplemental to the Ohio treaty of October 1818. This treaty stipulated that the United States was responsible for providing lands west of the Mississippi for the Delaware Nation’s permanent residence, as well as for furnishing provisions to aid in removal. It required of the United States an additional permanent $1,000 annuity for lands ceded in Missouri and stipulated that certain portions of the ceded land would be sold and the proceeds applied to the education of Delaware children. The treaty was signed by George Vashon, Indian agent, and by principal chief William Anderson and eleven other Delaware representatives at Council Camp on the James Fork of the White River in Missouri.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

310

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. – July 15, 1830

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. July 15, 1830 This treaty outlined the cession of lands by the Omaha; the confederated Sauk and Fox; the Missouri, Otoe, and Iowa tribes; and the MedawahKanton, Wahpeton, Wahpacoota, and Sisseton bands of Sioux. It outlined the purposes for which lands would be used, arranged for annuities and other payment, organized reservation lands, and determined new boundary lines. It was signed by fourteen Sauk, more than forty Fox, nine Wahpacoota, two Sisseton, thirteen Omaha, ten Iowa, fourteen Otoe, five Missouri, and six Missouri Sauk at Prairie du Chien, Michigan Territory. The Yankton and Santee bands of Sioux officially agreed to the treaty on October 13, 1830, at St. Louis by the signing of twenty-three representatives. William Clark, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Colonel Willoughby Morgan signed on behalf of the United States.

Treaty with the Chickasaw August 31, 1830 Under this treaty, the Chickasaw ceded all lands east of the Mississippi and agreed to remove to lands west of the Mississippi—approximately half one year and the other half the following year. In return, the United States agreed to pay a twenty-year annuity of $15,000 to the tribe, to compensate for the expense of removal, and to aid in subsistence for the first year. The treaty also allotted a ten-year stipend of $2,000 for the hire of Christian teachers and stipulated that the Chickasaw Nation would send twenty “Chickasaw boys of promise, from time to time” over twenty years, to be educated in the United States under the direction of the secretary of war. Concluded at Franklin, Tennessee, this treaty was signed by General John Coffee and Secretary of War John H. Eaton for the United States and by twenty Chickasaw representatives.

Treaty with the Choctaw September 27, 1830 Also known as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, this treaty, signed on September 27, 1830, was the first removal treaty negotiated after the passage of

www.abc-clio.com

the Indian Removal Act of 1830. By the terms of the treaty, the Choctaw Nation signed away all its land holdings east of the Mississippi River for land in Indian Territory. In exchange for their land, the Choctaw received a twenty-year annuity of $20,000 as well as other monetary allowances to build schools, churches, and a tribal council house in Indian Territory. The federal government had begun pressuring the Choctaw to relocate in 1820, when General Andrew Jackson was commissioned to meet with three Choctaw district chiefs and other lesser Choctaw officials at Doak’s Stand to discuss removal. All three chiefs opposed removal, but Jackson presented to them a bill, proposed by a Mississippi representative to Congress, that would prevent the Choctaw from using or settling on land west of the Mississippi. Although this sounds contrary to government policy, the federal officials thought that, as long as the Choctaw had free access to their western hunting grounds, they would never cede their Mississippi land. They reasoned that, if the Choctaw believed that the United States already owned the western land, the Indians might be willing to cede part of their eastern land in order to keep their western hunting grounds. The treaty did not require any Choctaw to leave their homes; those wishing to stay on the ceded land would receive a one-square-mile tract of land, to include their improvements. The Choctaw’s new territory had not yet been surveyed when the Treaty of Doak’s Stand was ratified. When the land was surveyed, it was discovered that white settlements already existed on the land. The federal government believed it would be almost impossible to remove the white settlers, so government officials requested that a Choctaw delegation come to Washington in the fall of 1824 to negotiate a new boundary line for the Choctaw’s western land. After the treaty of 1825 was negotiated, the United States expected the Choctaw to leave for their new land in Indian Territory. However, the majority of the Choctaw did not move. Consequently, the federal government and the state of Mississippi increased pressure on the Choctaw to remove. In 1829, the Mississippi legislature took strong action against the Choctaw people and extended Mississippi state laws over the Indians. In January 1830, the Choctaw became citizens of Mississippi; their tribal government was abolished, and any Indian exercising the office of chief or headman became subject to fines and imprisonment. The federal gov-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Menominee – February 17, 1831

ernment passed the Indian Removal Act and informed the Choctaw Nation that they would not be protected from hostile Mississippi State laws. After Mississippi extended its laws over the Choctaw, the Indians were constantly harassed by white settlers. To obtain relief, the Choctaw leadership requested a meeting with federal officials at the Dancing Rabbit Creek campgrounds. The negotiations dragged on for about two weeks. When the negotiations began to fail, the government purchased the signatures of the leaders with valuable land grants, lifelong salaries, and other presents. In the end, the government secured the leadership’s cooperation by playing to the Choctaw leadership’s lust for money and power. As soon as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was signed, the Choctaw people let it be known that they were outraged by the actions of their chiefs. Different factions elected different chiefs, and anarchy prevailed in the Choctaw Nation. However, little could be done. A few Choctaw left immediately for Indian Territory in order to claim the best land, but most waited to be moved by the U.S. government in one of three planned moves in 1831, 1832, or 1833. Removal proved to be an extremely difficult experience for the Choctaw. Out of 14,000 tribal members and 512 slaves who left Mississippi during these years, at least 2,500 died during the travel west. More died after reaching Indian Territory due to inadequate food supplies and severe weather. Around 6,000 Choctaw decided to take advantage of Article 14 of the treaty, which provided an opportunity for the Choctaw to remain in Mississippi; any head of household could apply for and receive U.S. citizenship, along with 640 acres of land. These people did not fare well, either. The Choctaw agency refused to let most of the Indians register for land allotments, and the paperwork for most of the remaining people who did register was lost. In the end, only sixty-nine heads of household were officially registered. The vast majority of the Choctaw remaining in Mississippi became squatters living in isolated areas on poor farmland. They lost all access to schools and public services and survived as best they could by gathering nuts and wild berries and by growing corn, pumpkins, and potatoes. Some worked for white farmers picking cotton, hoeing the fields, and doing other menial tasks. Many of these people eventually went to Indian Territory during the 1840s. Joyce Ann Kievit

www.abc-clio.com

311

See also Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi; Doak’s Stand, Mississippi; Doaksville, Oklahoma; LeFlore, Greenwood; Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820. References and Further Reading Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix, AZ: Indian Tribal Series. Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Treaty with the Menominee February 8, 1831 This treaty settled the boundaries of Menominee lands, as they were disputed by other New York tribes, in part by requiring the Menominee to cede certain portions of these lands. The United States agreed to compensate them with $20,000 to be paid over four years, $1,500 annually for education the first year, and $2,000 for the following ten years. Certain privileges, including hunting and fishing rights, were reserved to the tribe, and arrangements were made for reservation lands and structural improvements, including a gristmill and a sawmill. Concluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was signed by John H. Eaton, secretary of war, and Samuel C. Stambaugh, the Indian agent at Green Bay, for the United States and by twelve Menominee leaders.

Treaty with the Menominee February 17, 1831 This treaty was supplemental to the treaty of February 8, 1831. It amended the first and sixth articles of the previous treaties, which related to the settlement or removal of New York Indians on Menominee lands. The changes gave increased discretionary power over the issue to the president of the United States. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by John H. Eaton and Samuel C. Stambaugh for the United States and by twelve chiefs and warriors of the Menominee.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

312

Treaty with the Seneca – February 28, 1831

Treaty with the Seneca

Treaty with the Ottawa

February 28, 1831

August 30, 1831

This treaty organized the cession of Ohio lands and the removal of the Seneca to lands west of the Mississippi. It also obligated the United States to implement certain compensatory measures, including a $6,000 advancement, annuities, land grants, supplies, and defrayment of costs incurred through removal. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Comstick, Small Cloud Spicer, Seneca Steel, Hard Hickory, and Captain Good Hunter of the Seneca and by Commissioner James B. Gardener for the United States.

This treaty arranged the cession of Ottawa lands in Ohio, negating the reservation of lands promised the tribe in the treaty of November 17, 1807, and the treaty of September 29, 1817, in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi. This treaty specifically affected the bands residing on the Little Auglaize River at Oquanoxie’s Village and along Blanchard’s Fork of the Great Auglaize River. Under this treaty, the United States was obligated to defray the cost of removal, to supply one year’s provisions upon arrival of the Ottawa in the West, to pay $2,000 in advance for improvements on ceded Ohio lands, to pay a portion of the annuities promised the Ottawa Nation in former treaties, and to distribute goods. It also stipulated that certain lands would be temporarily reserved for certain individuals and organized individual land grants. Concluded at Miami Bay Lake Erie, the document was signed by James B. Gardiner for the United States and by more than twenty Ottawa headmen and warriors.

Treaty with the Seneca, Etc. July 20, 1831 Concluded at Pleasant Plains near Lewiston, Logan County, Ohio, this treaty arranged for Seneca and Shawnee land cessions and for the removal of these people to land west of the Mississippi. Under this treaty, the United States would provide $6,000 for improvements on the ceded lands, a sawmill and a blacksmith shop on the new lands, and goods and provisions to sustain the tribes for the first year after removal. The treaty was signed by James B. Gardner and Indian agent John McElvain on behalf of the United States and by thirteen chiefs and warriors of the mixed band of Shawnee and Seneca.

Treaty with the Shawnee August 8, 1831 This treaty arranged for the cession of Shawnee lands in Ohio and for removal of the Wapaghkonnetta and Hog Creek Shawnee west of the Mississippi. Under this agreement, the United States agreed to supply goods and provisions for the first year after removal; to defray the costs of the move; to build a sawmill, a gristmill, and a blacksmith shop on the new land; to pay compensation of $13,000 for land sales; and to continue to pay annuities promised in former treaties. The treaty was signed at Wapaghkonnetta, Allen County, Ohio, by twentyone Shawnee chiefs, headmen, and warriors and by James B. Gardiner and John McElvain for the United States.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Wyandot January 19, 1832 Concluded at McCutcheonsville, Crawford County, Ohio, this treaty arranged the cession of sixteen thousand acres of Wyandot land in Ohio. Under this treaty, the Wyandot of Big Spring were expected to choose between moving to Canada, to the Huron River in Michigan, or to any other Indian lands where they were welcome. This treaty called for a subagent to be appointed to this band and for the United States to pay for improvements. The treaty was signed by Roe-nu-nas, Bear-skin, Shi-a-wa (John Solomon), John McLean, Matthew Grey Eyes, Isaac Driver, John D. Brown, and Alex Clark for the Wyandot and by John B. Gardiner for the United States.

Treaty with the Creeks March 24, 1832 This treaty arranged for the cession of all remaining Creek lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for five years of $12,000 annuities followed by fifteen years of $10,000 annuities, $100,000 with which to pay debt claims against the tribe, and $16,000 for the expenses of the delegation to Wash-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Potawatomi – October 20, 1832

ington and for claims brought against them. The United States was also to pay for the cost of removal to the new lands. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass for the United States and by Opothleholo, Tuchebatcheehadgo, Efiematla, Tuchebatche Micco, Tomack Micco, William McGilvery, and Benjamin Marshall for the Creek Nations.

Treaty with the Seminole May 9, 1832 Concluded at Payne’s Landing on the Ocklewaha River, this treaty arranged for the cession of Seminole lands in Florida and for removal to Creek lands west of the Mississippi, which might be extended proportionate to their number. The United States agreed to pay the Seminole tribe $15,400 in compensation, $400 of which would be divided between the two treaty interpreters. The treaty also obligated the United States to increase present annuity arrangements made in the treaty at Camp Moultrie by $3,000 a year for fifteen years, to defray the costs of the move, and to supply subsistence for up to one year after arrival. The treaty was signed by James Gadsden for the United States and by fifteen Seminole chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Winnebago September 15, 1832 Concluded at Fort Armstrong, Rock Island, Illinois, this treaty organized the cession of Winnebago lands in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi. The United States agreed to pay $10,000 in currency annually for twenty-seven years, to establish and maintain educational facilities for the tribe, to pay $2,500 annually in agricultural support, to supply 1,500 pounds of tobacco annually to the Rock River band, to provide funding for two physicians, to relocate the blacksmith shop, and to provide limited rations. The treaty required the bands to deliver up offenders to U.S. authorities for punishment and to relinquish all hunting, planting, fishing, and other privileges on the ceded lands. The treaty was signed by Winfield Scott and John Reynolds for the United States and by more than thirty Winnebago chiefs, warriors, and headmen.

www.abc-clio.com

313

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox September 21, 1832 Concluded at Fort Armstrong, Rock Island, Illinois, this treaty organized the cession of Sauk and Fox lands and arranged for removal of the confederated tribes to reservation lands near the Mississippi River and spanning the Iowa River. The United States was obligated to pay a thirty-year annuity of $20,000, to provide a blacksmith shop and a gunsmith shop for thirty years, to provide a yearly allowance of tobacco and salt for thirty years, to pay $40,000 of debt owed two traders by the Sauk and Fox, and to release Sauk and Fox prisoners, with the exception of certain leaders who would be kept as hostages to ensure the compliance of recently hostile bands. The treaty also required the hostile bands to be absorbed by the neutral bands. General Winfield Scott and John Reynolds signed on behalf of the United States; nine Sauk and twenty-four Fox also signed.

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band October 11, 1832 This treaty called for the relinquishment of the reservation set aside for the Appalachicola in the Fort Moultrie treaty in Florida in September 1823, in exchange for land west of the Mississippi. It obligated the United States to cover the expense of removal, to pay $3,000 in currency and $10,000 when complete removal was under way, and to distribute the $5,000 annuities promised in the former treaty. The treaty was signed at Tallahassee, Florida Territory, by John Blunt, O Saa-Hajo (Davy), and Co-hathlock-co (Cockrane) for the Appalachicola band and by James Gadsden for the United States.

Treaty with the Potawatomi October 20, 1832 Concluded at Camp Tippecanoe, Indiana, this treaty arranged for the cession of Potawatomi lands and allowed for individual reservations. In return, the United States agreed to pay the Potawatomi $15,000 annually for twenty years, with additional lifetime annuities going to certain individuals; to pay claims against the tribe; to pay $45,000 in merchandise immediately upon signing the treaty and an

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

314

Treaty with the Chickasaw – October 20, 1832

additional $30,000 the following year; and to pay for horses taken from the tribe during the recent war. The treaty guaranteed the Potawatomi the right to hunt and fish on the ceded lands. It was signed by Jonathan Jennings, John W. Davis, and Marks Crume as commissioners for the United States and by more than sixty Potawatomi.

teen years, to begin the second year after ratification, with additional sums to be paid for other services and establishments. Concluded at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, the treaty was signed by William Clark, Frank J. Allen, and Nathan Kouns for the United States and by nineteen Kickapoo representatives.

Treaty with the Chickasaw

Treaty with the Potawatomi

October 20, 1832

October 26, 1832

This treaty arranged for the cession of Chickasaw lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land west of the Mississippi. Under this treaty, the United States was obligated to pay arranged annuities and other compensation and to settle boundary lines with the Choctaw. The treaty also forbade the occupation of Chickasaw lands before their sale. Concluded at the Council House on Pontitock Creek in the Chickasaw Nation, the treaty was signed by John Coffee for the United States and by sixty-five representatives of the Chickasaw Nation.

The treaty was a cession of Potawatomi lands in the state of Indiana, with limited reservations for certain bands, in exchange for annuities and payments in goods. The United States agreed to pay for debts against the tribe and to construct a sawmill on the reserved lands. Concluded on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana, this treaty was signed by Marks Crume, Jonathan Jennings, and John W. Davis for the United States and by more than forty Potawatomi chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc.

Treaty with the Chickasaw

October 26, 1832

October 22, 1832 This agreement was supplementary to the treaty of October 20, 1832, and specified that lands reserved to Chickasaw families were not to be sold or leased by them to anyone. Instead, sale agreements would be determined by chiefs and the president. The treaty also arranged for a mail route to cross Chickasaw lands. Concluded at Pontitock Creek, the treaty was signed by John Coffee for the United States and by more than seventy Chickasaw representatives.

Treaty with the Kickapoo October 24, 1832 Under this treaty, the Kickapoo relinquished the lands reserved for them by the 1822 Treaty of Edwardsville and all other lands in the state of Missouri, in exchange for land southwest of the Mississippi River. The United States also agreed to pay $18,000, $12,000 of which would be given to the superintendent of Indian affairs to be applied to the tribe’s debts, and any balance remaining would be returned to the tribe. The United States was also to pay a $5,000 annuity in currency or goods for nine-

www.abc-clio.com

Concluded at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, this treaty organized the cession of Shawnee and Delaware lands in Missouri. In return, the United States agreed to pay the Delaware for improvements to the land, maintenance of a mill, support for education, purchase of cattle and other stock, to pay Delaware debts, and to help compensate for costs incurred during removal. The treaty required the Shawnee to remove all bands in the Arkansas Territory to the Kansa River. The United States would compensate the tribes in currency and goods, to be applied toward removal expenses. The treaty was signed by William Clark, Frank J. Allen, and Nathan Kouns for the United States and by ten representatives of the Shawnee and Delaware.

Treaty with the Potawatomi October 26, 1832 This treaty made limited reservations for certain bands from the cession. The United States was obligated to pay the tribe a twenty-year annuity of $20,000; to deliver $100,000 in goods upon the conclusion of the treaty; to pay an additional $30,000 in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Western Cherokee – February 14, 1833

goods the following year, to be delivered by the Indian agent; and to pay the debts of the Potawatomi. Concluded on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana, the treaty was signed by Marks Crume, Jonathan Jennings, and John W. Davis for the United States and by more than forty Potawatomi chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

315

tural assistance and $200 in merchandise upon conclusion of the treaty. The Wea received a $500 value in livestock and other goods, and $200 in cash and merchandise upon signing. The Wea of Indiana would be assisted in joining this group. Concluded at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, the treaty was signed by William Clark, Frank J. Allen, and Nathan Kouns on behalf of the United States and by three Wea and two Piankashaw.

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc. October 27, 1832 Concluded at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, this treaty was arranged between the Peoria and Kaskaskia tribes and the Michigamia, Cahokia, and Tamarois bands, formerly of the Illinois Nation. The treaty arranged for the uniting of the Kaskaskia and Peoria through the cession of lands occupied by the Kaskaskia under the August 13, 1803, treaty at Vincennes in Illinois and Missouri, for their removal from those lands to those possessed by the Peoria west of Missouri, and for some addition to these lands. The Kaskaskia were required to give up former annuity agreements. The treaty was signed by William Clark, Frank J. Allen, and Nathan Kouns for the United States and by five Peoria and four Kaskaskia.

Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee December 29, 1832 Concluded at the Seneca agency on the Cowskin River, this treaty organized the cession of Seneca and Shawnee land granted in the July 1831 treaty, in exchange for different lands west of the Mississippi that would better accommodate the recent union of the two tribes. The United States agreed to build immediately a gristmill, a sawmill, and a blacksmith shop and to pay $1,000, to be divided between the Seneca of Sandusky and the Seneca and Shawnee from Lewiston. The treaty was signed by Henry J. Ellsworth and John F. Schermerhorn for the United States and by fourteen Seneca chiefs and twelve chiefs of the Seneca and Shawnee mixed band.

Treaty with the Menominee October 27, 1832 This treaty was a follow-up to the February 1831 treaties, which stipulated that the Menominee would relinquish some of their lands for the use of the Munsee, Brothertown, and Stockbridge Indians of New York. It determined the new boundaries and reservations. The treaty was signed at the agency house at Green Bay by George B. Porter for the United States and by eighteen Menominee representatives.

Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea October 29, 1832 This treaty organized the cession of remaining Piankashaw and Wea lands in Missouri and Illinois in exchange for a tract of land near the Peoria west of Missouri. The United States agreed to pay the Piankashaw in livestock and merchandise annually for five years for losses incurred during removal, up to a $500 value; it also agreed to pay $750 for agricul-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Western Cherokee February 14, 1833 This treaty took place after councils held between the Cherokee and the Creek Nations regarding overlapping lands outlined in treaties; it stipulated the new boundary agreed on between the two nations. It also obligated the United States to correct the situation by recognizing this new boundary and by reserving additional lands to the tribes to equal the intended space documented in previous treaties. The United States also agreed to provide materials to build and support four blacksmith shops, one wagon-maker’s shop, and one wheelwright shop, and to erect eight patent railway corn mills. Concluded at Fort Gibson on the Arkansas River, the treaty was signed by Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth, and John F. Schermerhorn for the United States and by John Jolly, Black Coat, Walter Weller,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

316

Treaty with the Creek – February 14, 1833

and principal chiefs John Rogers and Glass for the Western Cherokee.

Treaty with the Creeks February 14, 1833 This treaty supports the same objects as the treaty made the same day with the Western Cherokee. This treaty also covered the Seminole, who wished to rejoin the Creeks, noting that the Seminole would live on land reserved for the Creek Nations but located in a separated area. This treaty also obligated the United States to build and support certain shops and mills and to fund education. The treaty was concluded at Fort Gibson; it was signed by Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth, and John F. Schermerhorn for the United States and by nine Creek chiefs.

May 13, 1833 This treaty recognized the difficulties encountered by the Quapaw due to the location in which the United States placed them according to the November 15, 1824, treaty. With this treaty, the Quapaw ceded the lands on the Bayou Treache of the Red River (Caddo land) in exchange for different land west of Missouri. The United States agreed to pay for relocation and debts; to supply the Quapaw with a year of provisions, livestock, and other merchandise, including farming and agricultural tools; and to pay $1,000 dollars annually for educational purposes and a twenty-year annuity of $2,000. The treaty was signed by John F. Schermerhorn for the United States and by eleven Quapaw.

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band June 18, 1833

Treaty with the Ottawa February 18, 1833 Under this treaty, the Ottawa ceded two reservations and any other land located in the vicinity of the Miami River or Miami Bay of Lake Erie. The treaty outlined reservations to be made for individuals or small groups and obligated the United States to pay $29,440 to the tribe for payment of claims against them. Concluded at Maumee, Ohio, the treaty was signed by George B. Porter for the United States and by twenty-one Ottawa chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Seminole March 28, 1833 This treaty related to the treaty with the Creek in February 1833 and the 1832 treaty at Payne’s Landing. Under this treaty, the Seminole were allotted their portion of the lands then occupied by the Creek Nation, and the appointment of Major Phagen was requested to organize and aid in Seminole relocation west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Fort Gibson, the treaty was signed by Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth, and John F. Schermerhorn for the United States and by John Hick, Holata Emartta, Jumper, Coe Hadgo, Charley Emartta, Ya-ha-hadge, and Neha-tho-clo for the Seminole.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Quapaw

This treaty called for the cession of lands set aside for the band in the September 1823 treaty at Camp Moultrie, in exchange for small individual or group reservations. It also stipulated that, once the Seminole were removed, the protection of the United States would cease, and the Appalachicola would be subject to the laws of Florida Territory if they chose to remain. The United States was still obligated to pay to those remaining in Florida Territory the $5,000 annuity promised under the Camp Moultrie treaty. Concluded at Pope’s, Fayette County, Florida Territory, this treaty was signed by James Gadsden for the United States and by nine Appalachicola.

Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri September 21, 1833 Concluded at the Otoe village on the Platte River, this treaty organized a land cession and outlined the conditions of the cession. The United States was obligated to continue the $2,500 annuity promised in the Treaty of Prairie du Chien, to continue the $500 annuity for agricultural supplies, to pay a five-year annuity of $500 for education, to construct a corn-grinding mill, to provide five years of agricultural assistance, to provide $1,000 in livestock, and to pay $400 in goods and mer-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. – September 26, 1833 chandise at the conclusion of the treaty signing. The treaty was signed by Henry L. Ellsworth for the United States and by twenty-six Otoe and Missouri representatives.

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. September 26, 1833 Also called the Treaty of Chicago, this treaty was negotiated in September 1833 in Chicago, Illinois, and it arranged for the cession of lands in northeastern Illinois, southeastern Wisconsin, and

southern Michigan. It also provided for the removal of the United Band of Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi Indians from the region. As a result of both the rapid expansion in settlement in the western Great Lakes region and the military might displayed by federal and local governments in the Black Hawk War a year earlier, representatives of the United Band and other Potawatomi groups agreed to meet with U.S. commissioners. At the end of the negotiations, the Indians had ceded approximately five million acres, and most had agreed to relocate to new homes west of the Mississippi River.

Fleeing bands of Sauk and Fox caught and attacked by American troops, leading to the Battle of Bad Axe August 1, 1832, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the final conflict of the Black Hawk War. This war, in which the federal and local governments displayed their military might, was one of the factors leading up to the historic 1833 Treaty of Chicago. (North Wind Picture Archives)

www.abc-clio.com

317

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

318

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. – September 26, 1833

The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 after eight years of construction. The Erie Canal was the longest canal of its time, running throughout the New York wilderness and linking Lake Erie to the Hudson River. (Library of Congress)

By the early 1830s, the advancement of American settlement and the opening of the Erie Canal had tremendously increased the scale of American migration into the western Great Lakes region. The non-Indian population of Illinois alone had tripled in the period from statehood in 1818 to 1830. Although initial settlement had focused on the lead-mining region in the northwestern part of the state, the scope had begun to change. This encroachment, combined with the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, increased the pressure on resident Indian groups to move to lands west of the Mississippi. In the fall of 1833, three governmentdesignated treaty commissioners met in Chicago with the representatives of some of the largest Native landholders remaining in the region. More than eight thousand Indians and Americans gathered by the shores of Lake Michigan to participate in the negotiations, which lasted for more than two weeks. The treaty can be separated into two parts. The first and largest portion of the treaty addressed the negotiations made with the representatives of the United Band of Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pota watomi Indians. In this section, the United Band

www.abc-clio.com

ceded claims to all of its lands in northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, which consisted of approximately five million acres. In return, the United States granted an equal amount of land located just north of the state of Missouri, to which the Indians were required to remove within three years from the date of ratification of the treaty. Additional articles provided money for education, agriculture, debt payments, and ex penses related to the future removal. The second part of the treaty encompassed several supplementary agreements and addressed separate negotiations with the Potawatomi residents of southern Michigan. These bands and their main spokesman, Pokagun, represented the strongest opposition to removal among the participating Indian groups. As a result of this resistance to relocation, the treaty commissioners negotiated a separate accord with these Indians. Although the primary supplement did arrange for the cession of all their lands in southern Michigan, an addendum allowed for some of these Michigan Potawatomis to move onto lands in northern Michigan, as opposed to lands west of the Mississippi.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Potawatomi – December 10, 1834

319

Assessment of this treaty’s impact must take into account a number of issues. In the first place, the treaty arranged the removal of a significant population of Indians from the western Great Lakes region and opened up five million acres to American settlers. But the treaty’s influence went beyond this cession of Native-owned lands. Significantly, the treaty and its addenda illustrated some of the ways in which populations of Indian peoples avoided removal. In particular, Pokagun’s stance against the land cession led to the treaty addendum that provided an exemption for his band in southern Michigan. This community of Potawatomi maintained a presence in the region long after the United Band had moved to the Council Bluffs area in Iowa Territory. Finally, the negotiations in 1833 illustrated the growing influence of individuals of mixed descent within the United Band in particular. Two of the men designated as chiefs who signed the treaty, Billy Caldwell and Alexander Robinson, were not men born into the United Band. Caldwell, or Saukenuk, came from a Mohawk-Irish lineage; Robinson, or Cheecheebinquay, from an Ottawa-British one. Both men received lifetime annuities through the treaty as well as $5,000 each to pay debts incurred through trading with the United Bands. John P. Bowes

blacksmith shop and four corn-grinding mills. The four bands would also receive $1,000 in goods and merchandise upon signing the treaty. Concluded at the Grand Pawnee village on the Platte River, this treaty was signed by Henry L. Ellsworth for the United States and by four Grand Pawnee, four Pawnee Republican, four Tappaye Pawnee, and four Pawnee Loup representatives.

See also Caldwell, Billy; Indian Removal; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Pokagun. References and Further Reading Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture 1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck. 1987. Ed. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

This treaty arranged the cession of lands reserved to the Miami in Indiana for previous cessions. In return, the United States agreed to pay the Miami $200,000, to issue individual patents and land grants, to substitute a miller for the blacksmith promised in a previous treaty, and to compensate the tribe for horses stolen by whites. Concluded at the forks of the Wabash River in Indiana, the treaty was signed by William Marshall for the United States and by thirty-one Miami chiefs and warriors.

May 24, 1834 This treaty was designed to maintain peaceful relations, to aid the Chickasaw in removal, to protect Chickasaw lands, to distribute grants and reservations, to determine boundaries, and to regulate land sales. It also included supplementary articles regarding individuals, ceded reservation land, stolen money, and educational provisions. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner John H. Eaton for the United States and by George Colbert and Isaac Albertson for the Chickasaw.

Treaty with the Miami October 23, 1834

Treaty with the Potawatomi

Treaty with the Pawnee

December 10, 1834

October 9, 1833 This treaty arranged for the cession by confederated bands of Pawnee of all land south of the Platte River, with the retention of hunting rights upon said land. The United States was obligated to pay the Pawnee a twelve-year annuity of $4,600 in goods, an additional five-year annuity of $500 for agricultural supplies, and a ten-year annuity of $1,000 for education, and to supply and support a

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chickasaw

The tribe ceded six sections of land temporarily reserved to them in the October 1832 treaty at Tippecanoe. The United States agreed to pay $400 in goods and a two-year annuity of $1,000. Concluded on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana, the treaty was signed by William Marshall for the United States and by Muck Rose, Paw-tisse, Sis-seeyaw, Wau-pish-shaw, and Koo-tah-waun-nay for the Potawatomi.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

320

Treaty with the Potawatomi – December 16, 1834

Treaty with the Potawatomi

Treaty with the Caddo

December 16, 1834 Because the cessions made in the previous treaty included mills, the United States agreed to compensate for the losses by paying $700 in currency and putting $900 toward the tribe’s debts. Concluded at the Potawatomi mills in Indiana, this treaty was signed by twenty-five Potawatomi chiefs, headmen, and warriors and by U.S. Commissioner William Marshall.

Treaty with the Potawatomi

July 1, 1835 This treaty arranged a land cession and required removal at the expense of the Caddo Nation. The United States agreed to pay the Caddo $30,000 in goods and horses at the conclusion of the treaty and a five-year annuity of $10,000 in currency. Concluded at the agency house in the Caddo Nation, Louisiana, this treaty was signed by Jehiel Brooks for the United States and twenty-five Caddo chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.

December 17, 1834 This treaty arranged for the removal of the tribe west of the Mississippi at the cost of the United States. The United States agreed to pay $680 in goods to the chief and headmen at the signing of the treaty, as well as $600 in currency for the 1835 annuity. Concluded at the Indian agency, Logansport, Indiana, this treaty was signed by Commissioner William Marshall for the United States and by Chief Mo-ta and seventeen Potawatomi headmen.

Treaty with the Potawatomi

August 4, 1835 This treaty was between the Comanche, Wichita, and tribes or bands associated with them, and the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Choctaw, Osage, Seneca, and Quapaw. The treaty was designed to establish peace between these contending tribes and to arrange safe passage of U.S. citizens through their lands while traveling to or from Mexico. It also arranged for a negotiated justice system. The treaty was signed by Montfort Stokes and Brigadier General M. Arbuckle for the United States and by nineteen Comanche, fifteen Wichita, two Cherokee, more than forty Muscogee, thirty-one Choctaw, thirty-seven Osage, eighteen Seneca, and twenty-two Quapaw.

December 24, 1834 Concluded on Lake Max-ee-nie-kue-kee in Indiana, this treaty arranged for further cession of Potawatomi lands reserved in the 1832 treaty at Tippecanoe. In return, the United States paid $400 in goods at the conclusion of the treaty. The treaty was signed by William Marshall for the United States and by Com-o-za, Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, Nee-so-awquet, and Paw-pee for the Potawatomi.

Agreement with the Cherokee March 14, 1835 Concluded at Washington, this treaty is a provisional set of arrangements to be presented to and potentially approved by the Cherokee east of the Mississippi, including a proposal for the United States to pay $4,500,000 for the cession of all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi. This agreement was not ratified.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Cherokee December 29, 1835 Also called the Treaty of New Echota, this was a removal agreement between the federal government and a minority faction of the Cherokee Nation signed on December 29, 1835, in the town of New Echota, Georgia. According to the terms of the treaty, the Cherokee Nation exchanged all their land east of Mississippi for a large tract of land in Indian Territory and $5 million. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which provided funds for the president to conduct land-exchange treaties with Indians living east of the Mississippi. Initially, federal negotiators tried to coerce principal chief John Ross and members of the Cherokee National Council to remove to the West. When federal negotiators were unable to convince the elected Cherokee leadership to sign a removal treaty, President Andrew Jackson sent

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee – December 29, 1835

John Ridge (1827–1867), one of the Cherokees who supported removal in the negotiation of the Treaty of New Echota. (Library of Congress)

General William Carroll and Reverend John Schermerhorn to draw up a treaty with a few prominent Cherokees who favored removal. Members of this faction, later called the Treaty Party, included Major Ridge, John Ridge, Stand Watie, and Elias Boudinot. Major Ridge was a former acting chief of the Cherokee Nation and a wealthy, slave-owning planter. He was familiar with the laws of the Nation and knew he was in violation of the Blood Law, which made the sale or cession of Cherokee land a crime punishable by death. However, he and other members of the faction were greatly disturbed by the constant harassment they and other Indians received from white settlers. In 1829 and 1830, the Georgia legislature passed a series of laws that outlawed the Cherokee government and authorized a survey of Cherokee land and a lottery to distribute the land to the white residents of Georgia. The legislature also passed the Indian Code, which prohibited Cherokees from testifying in court against white persons, mining gold on their own land, speaking against removal, and meeting in council. After several trips to Washington to talk to federal officials and a survey of the countryside, Ridge believed that it was in the best interest of the Cherokee Nation as a whole to relocate in the West. He thought that further resistance to federal removal demands would be futile, that the Chero-

www.abc-clio.com

321

kee should get the best terms possible from the government and depart before there was more bloodshed. Immediately after signing the document and receiving their payment from the government, the members of the Treaty Party moved west. They selected the best land in the new Cherokee Nation and made alliances with the three thousand “Old Settler” Cherokees, who had left the main body of the Cherokee Nation in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries for various reasons. While the Treaty Party adjusted to their homes in the West, principal chief John Ross, members of the Cherokee National Council, and the vast majority of the Cherokees living in the East repudiated the treaty and refused to move. They vigorously protested the treaty and made their cause known to the American people. Regardless of the protests, the Senate ratified the treaty by one vote in May 1836. Undaunted, the Cherokee Nation continued to lobby against the treaty and to postpone the removal process. In April 1838, approximately 15,600 of the 16,000 members of the Cherokee Nation signed and presented a petition to Congress requesting that the treaty be voided. Congress ignored the petition. In May 1838, federal officials became frustrated with the Cherokee resistance. President Martin Van Buren ordered General Winfield Scott and seven

Major Ridge (1771–1839) was a former acting chief of the Cherokee Nation and a wealthy, slave-owning planter. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

322

Treaty with the Potawatomi – March 26, 1836

lots to select the assassins. Early in the morning of June 22, the assassins left the campgrounds in search of Major Ridge, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot, and Stand Watie. Both of the Ridges and Boudinot were executed; fortunately, Stand Watie was able to escape. The executions intensified the preexisting tribal divisions and caused an intermittent civil war to rage through the Cherokee Nation for the next forty years. Joyce Ann Kievit See also Boudinot, Elias; Indian Removal; Indian Removal Act, 1830; New Echota, Georgia; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge, Major; Ross, John; Trail of Tears; Watie, Stand. References and Further Reading Agnew, Brad. 1980. Fort Gibson, Terminal on the Trail of Tears. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dale, Edward Everett, and Gaston Litton. 1969. Cherokee Cavaliers: Forty Years of Cherokee History as Told in the Correspondence of the Ridge-WatieBoudinot Family. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Foreman, Grant. 1953. Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Moulton, Gary E., ed. 1985. The Papers of Chief John Ross. 2 vols. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Stand Watie (1806–1871), a member of the Treaty Party faction during the development of the Treaty of New Echota. (National Archives and Records Administration)

thousand soldiers to round up all Cherokees living in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, and place them into camps to prepare for removal. To discourage the people from running away and returning to their homes, Scott had all Cherokee property burned and all crops destroyed. The forced march to the West began during the summer of 1838 and continued through the harsh winter of 1839. Of 16,543 Cherokees and 1,592 slaves removed, one quarter of the people died. The Cherokee call their trek west Nunna daul Tsuny—“the trail where they cried.” Once the majority of the Cherokee arrived in the West, the three distinct groups of Cherokee people— the Old Settlers, the Treaty Party, and the Ross Party—were expected to merge into one single nation. Unfortunately, the transition was not easy. Many of the new arrivals were furious with the members of the Treaty Party and wanted to avenge the loss of their relatives and the loss of their homeland. However, Chief John Ross would not authorize the execution of the Treaty Party members. On the night of June 21, 150 to 200 people gathered at Takatoka Camp Ground to discuss recent events. Angry about removal and holding the Treaty Party responsible for their losses, they decided that now was the right time to enforce the Blood Law on the signers of the Treaty of New Echota. They drew

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Potawatomi March 26, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of four sections of land reserved to the Potawatomi by the October 1832 treaty at Tippecanoe. The United States agreed to pay an additional $2,560 in currency with the next annuity payment. Concluded at a camp in Turkey Creek Prairie, Indiana, the treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by Mes-quawbuck, Mess-Sett, Muck Rose, Waw-baw-que-ke-aw, Naush-waw-pi-tant, and Che-qua-sau-quah for the Potawatomi.

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc. March 28, 1836 This treaty arranged for the cession of lands by the Chippewa and Ottawa, reserving for common use by the two tribes certain tracts for five years and lands reserved specifically for the Chippewa north of the straits of the Michilimackinac for five years. The treaty also obligated the United States to pay the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa – May 9, 1836

Ottawa and Chippewa a twenty-year annuity of $30,000 in specie, with other sums to be paid to five individual groups and $1,000 to be invested in stock by the Treasury Department. Additional sums to be paid by the United States were to be applied to missions, debts, education, agricultural endeavors, tools, medicines, and payment of chiefs. The United States also agreed to help compensate for the move to other reservations and to provide monies for additional provisions. Mixed-blood people were to be paid an additional sum of money instead of given reservation land. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Henry R. Schoolcraft and John Hulbert for the United States and by thirty-nine Ottawa and Chippewa chiefs and delegates.

Treaty with the Potawatomi March 29, 1836 This treaty organized the cession of the four tracts of Potawatomi lands reserved to them in a prior treaty and required the Potawatomi to remove west of the Mississippi within two years. The United States was to pay $2,560 in specie at the first annuity payment. Concluded at Tippecanoe River in Indiana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by Wau-ke-wau, Waw-was-mo-queh, Teshaw-gen, Mes-quaw, Pah-Siss, and She-aw-ke-pee for the Potawatomi.

Treaty with the Potawatomi April 11, 1836 The treaty arranged for the cession of the thirty-six sections of land reserved to the Potawatomi by the October 26, 1832, treaty at Tippecanoe and removal of the Potawatomi west of the Mississippi within two years. The United States agreed to pay $2,000 in specie to the tribes for their cession and removal. Concluded at a camp on Tippecanoe River in Indiana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by sixteen Potawatomi representatives.

Treaty with the Potawatomi April 22, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of ten sections of land reserved for the Potawatomi by the second arti-

www.abc-clio.com

323

cle of the treaty at Tippecanoe made October 26, 1832. The United States agreed to pay the tribe $6,400 at the first annuity payment after the treaty was ratified. The treaty required the Potawatomi on said lands to relocate west of the Mississippi within two years. Concluded at the Indian agency in Indiana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by thirteen Potawatomi chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Potawatomi April 22, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of three sections of Potawatomi land, reserved for them by the second article of the treaty at Tippecanoe made October 26, 1832, and required them to relocate west of the Mississippi within two years. The United States agreed to pay $1,920 at the first annuity payment after the ratification of the treaty. The treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by Quashquaw, Me-cos-ta, Nas-waw-kee, Wem-se-ko, and Ahquash-she for the Potawatomi.

Treaty with the Wyandot April 23, 1836 This treaty organized a cession of land to the United States by the Wyandot. It arranged for the United States to defray the costs to the Wyandot and made arrangements for roads, schools, and the manner of financial compensation. It allowed the owners of certain reservations to receive payment for the sale of their lands. The treaty was signed by John A. Bryan for the United States and by William Walker, John Barnett, and Peacock, leaders of the Wyandot in Ohio.

Treaty with the Chippewa May 9, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession by the Swan Creek and Black River Chippewa bands of lands reserved to them in the November 1807 treaty at Detroit, in exchange for certain payments by the United States in monies and in land west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Washington, D.C., this treaty was signed by Henry R. Schoolcraft for the United States and by Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), Nay-gee-zhig (Driving

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

324

Treaty with the Potawatomi – August 5, 1836

Clouds), May-zin (Checkered), and Kee-way-geezhig (Returning Sky) for the Chippewa.

Treaty with the Potawatomi August 5, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of two sections of land reserved for the Potawatomi by the second article of the treaty at Tippecanoe made October 26, 1832, in exchange for payment of $14,080 after treaty ratification. The tribe also agreed to relocate to land west of the Mississippi within two years. Concluded at a camp near Yellow River, Indiana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by thirteen Potawatomi headmen and thirteen chiefs of the Wabash Potawatomi.

Treaty with the Iowa, Etc. September 17, 1836 The treaty arranged the cession of lands between the state of Missouri and the Missouri River. The United States paid the tribes $7,500 as a gift for their cooperation. The Missouri band of Sauk and Fox was granted a small tract of land south of the Missouri River, to be split with the Iowa tribe. The United States agreed to help construct housing, aid the tribes in establishing farms, and so forth. Concluded at Fort Leavenworth, the treaty was signed by William Clark for the United States and by twelve Iowa and fifteen Sauk and Fox chiefs, counselors, and warriors.

Treaty with the Potawatomi September 20, 1836

Treaty with the Menominee September 3, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of Menominee land and required the United States to pay a twenty-year annuity of $20,000 and to supply various amounts of specified goods annually for twenty years. The United States also agreed to pay debts of the Menominee and $80,000 to be distributed among the mixed-blood people of the tribe. The tribe also agreed to release the United States from certain obligations contained in the 1831 and 1832 treaties. Concluded on the Fox River at Cedar Point on Green Bay in Wisconsin Territory, this treaty was signed by Governor Henry Dodge for the United States and by twenty-four chiefs and headmen of the Menominee.

Under this treaty, the Potawatomi ceded ten sections of land reserved for them by the second article of the treaty at Tippecanoe, October 27, 1832. The United States agreed to pay them $8,000 for this cession and required the relocation of the tribe west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Chippewanaung, Indiana, this treaty was signed by U.S. Commissioner Abel C. Pepper and by We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother), Me-

Treaty with the Sioux September 10, 1836 This treaty arranged the cession of certain Sioux lands, to be dealt with according to the July 15, 1830, treaty at Prairie du Chien. The United States provided $400 worth of goods at the conclusion of the treaty. The treaty was signed by Colonel Zachary Taylor, acting Indian agent for the United States, and by Sau-tabe-say, Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, Nau-taysah-pah, Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, and Hoo-yah (the Eagle) for the Sioux of Wa-ha-shaw.

www.abc-clio.com

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, c. 1867. The fort was the scene of various treaty agreements, including a key treaty with the Iowa in 1836. Named after Colonel Henry Leavenworth, Fort Leavenworth is the oldest U.S. fort west of the Mississippi River. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux – November 30, 1836

mot-way, Che-quaw-ka-ko, Min-tom-in, Shawgwok-skuk, and Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow).

325

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox September 28, 1836

Treaty with the Potawatomi September 22, 1836 Under this treaty, the Potawatomi ceded four sections of land reserved for them by the second article of the treaty at Tippecanoe, October 27, 1832. The United States agreed to pay $3,200 for the cession and required the relocation of this band west of the Mississippi within two years. The treaty arranged for the appointment of a commissioner to pay the debts of this Potawatomi band. Concluded at Chippewanaung, Indiana, the treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by Chief Mo-sack, Nawb-bwitt, Skin-cheesh, Spo-tee, Naw-squi-base, and Mose-so of the Potawatomi.

Under this treaty, the Sauk and Fox ceded all four hundred sections of land reserved to them in the second article of the September 21, 1832, treaty. The United States agreed to pay $30,000 in specie for ten years and $48,458 toward Sauk and Fox debts. The United States also agreed to deliver two hundred horses in June 1837. Provisions were also made for the mixed-blood Sauk and Fox. Concluded at the treaty ground on the bank of the Mississippi in Debuque County, Wisconsin Territory, opposite Rock Island, this treaty was signed by Commissioner Henry Dodge and twenty chiefs, warriors, and headmen of the confederated tribes.

Treaty with the Otoe, Etc. October 15, 1836

Treaty with the Potawatomi September 23, 1836 This treaty required the cession of all remaining Potawatomi lands in Indiana, reserving sections for the use of particular bands. The United States agreed to pay $1.25 per acre, or $33,600 in specie in 1837, and required the Potawatomi to relocate west of the Mississippi within two years. The treaty arranged for the appointment of a commissioner to pay the debts of this Potawatomi band. Concluded at Chippewanaung, Indiana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by nineteen chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Wabash Potawatomi.

Under this treaty, tribes ceded to the United States the lands lying between the state of Missouri and the Missouri River and south of a line running due west from the northwest corner of the state to the Missouri River. The United States presented the representatives with $4,520 in merchandise and agreed to furnish the Otoe and Missouri tribes with five hundred bushels of corn and to break up one hundred acres of Omaha land and fence it. Concluded at Bellevue, Upper Missouri, this treaty was signed by John Dougherty, Indian agent, and Joshua Pilcher for the United States and by thirteen Otoe, seven Missouri, fifteen Omaha, and twelve Yankton and Santee.

Treaty with the Sioux November 30, 1836

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe September 27, 1836 This treaty organized the cession of Sauk and Fox lands between the state of Missouri and the Missouri River. The treaty was signed by Henry Dodge, superintendent for Indian affairs, and by twentythree Sauk and Fox representatives.

www.abc-clio.com

The treaty organized the cession of the lands lying between the state of Missouri and the Missouri River. The United States presented the signatories with $550 in goods. Concluded at St. Peters, the treaty was signed by Lawrence Taliaferro, Indian agent, for the United States and by four Sisseton, four Wahpaakootah, and nine Upper Medawakanton leaders.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

326

Treaty with the Chippewa – January 14, 1837

the treaty of 1837 with the Ojibwe was unique because it contained no removal clause. With the Ojibwe able to hunt, fish, and gather on the lands they ceded to the United States in the treaty of 1837 (and in subsequent treaties in 1842 and 1854), they had legal footing to challenge the U.S. government, in the late 1900s, to retain the right to hunt and fish that had been increasingly disputed throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The primary circumstance that led to the treaty of 1837 was the interest of the United States in the bounty of timber resources located in northern Wisconsin. The Ojibwe, who had established a reliance on, and had sunk into debt to, traders who had provided them with guns, blankets, and other necessary equipment during the fur trading era, were willing to negotiate with the United States to alleviate their economic difficulties. Commissioner Henry Dodge, the Wisconsin territorial governor acting on behalf of the United States, called together more than a thousand Ojibwe from various locations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan to negotiate the sale of the timber-rich lands. The three major groups represented were the Ojibwe of the Mississippi, the Ojibwe of Lake Superior, and the Pillager Ojibwe. Dodge stressed A Chippewa man with a rifle. The Treaty of 1837 was the treaty that guaranteed Chippewa fishing, hunting, and gathering rights in the Voigt Decision in 1983. (Library of Congress)

Treaty with the Chippewa January 14, 1837 The treaty of 1837 with the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) was between the United States and three groups of the Ojibwe across Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. After extensive negotiations between the parties near present-day Minneapolis and St. Paul, the United States agreed to provide the Ojibwe with cash annuities, blankets, rifles, cooking utensils, and other provisions in exchange for the cession of the timber-rich lands in northern Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota. Of more value to the Ojibwe was the agreement of the United States to refrain from seeking to remove the Native Americans from the lands they ceded and to provide payments to traders to whom the Ojibwe were heavily in debt. In an era in which the United States was actively engaged in removing the Native Americans from the eastern portion of the country,

www.abc-clio.com

Wa-em-Boesh-Kaa, a Chippewa chief. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa – July 29, 1837

to these groups that the United States desired the land in northern Wisconsin specifically for its timber resources. As the forests were a renewable resource, the Ojibwe agreed to cede the land under the important stipulation that they could continue to hunt, fish, and gather on it, provided they did so peacefully and did not interfere with logging operations. In exchange for the land, Dodge was authorized to pay $9,500 in currency, $19,000 in goods, $3,000 to support three blacksmiths, $1,000 for agricultural pursuits, $2,000 in provisions, $500 for tobacco, and money to settle debts between the Ojibwe and their traders. The land the United States acquired from the treaty of 1837 was for logging operations and not initially intended for white settlement; thus, there was no massive influx of settlers who sought to displace the Ojibwe in the years following the treaty. It was not until the reservation system was created in 1854 that the Ojibwe way of life became radically altered; even then, they retained the right to hunt and fish on the land they ceded. The treaty of 1837 set in motion the tradition of a nonremoval policy by the United States that appeared again in the 1842 and 1854 treaties with the Ojibwe. The Ojibwe have not forgotten this important aspect of the treaties, and in the late 1900s many groups asserted in court the right to hunt and fish on ceded land, for the growing inclination of the United States in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries was to restrict those rights. The lasting impact of these cases has yet to be determined. Troy Henderson

327

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw January 17, 1837 This treaty organized the Chickasaw district of the Choctaw Nation and required the Chickasaw to pay the Choctaw for the rights and privileges discussed in the treaty. Concluded on Choctaw lands near Fort Towson at Doaksville, this treaty was signed by William Armstrong, acting superintendent for the Western Territory, and Henry R. Carter, conductor of the Chickasaw Delegation, for the United States; by John McLish, Pitman Colbert, James Brown, and James Perry for the Chickasaw; and by twelve commissioners and seven captains of the Choctaw.

Treaty with the Potawatomi February 11, 1837 Under this treaty, the signatory chiefs and headmen agreed to the Indiana land cessions organized by the August 5, September 23, October 26, and October 23, 1832, treaties. This treaty also dealt with the payment issues relating to the cessions. The tribe was expected to relocate to a tract of land on the Osage River southwest of the Missouri River. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner John T. Douglass for the United States and by various Potawatomi leaders.

Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc. May 26, 1837

See also Sovereignty; Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854; Trust Doctrine; Trust Lands. References and Further Reading Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Satz, Ronald. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty was designed as a treaty of peace and friendship. It includes stipulations regarding hunting, payment for stolen property, payment for injuries to U.S. traders, hunting boundaries, and arrangements for a limited negotiated justice system. It also required peaceful relations with Mexico. It was signed by Commissioners Montfort Stokes and A. P. Chouteau for the United States and by ten Kiowa, three Ka-ta-ka, four Ta-wa-ka-ro, ten Muscogee, and twenty Osage chiefs, headmen, and representatives.

Treaty with the Chippewa July 29, 1837 This treaty arranged the cession of Chippewa lands, set new boundaries, required the United

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

328

Treaty with the Sioux – September 29, 1837

States to make payments for twenty years and to pay the claims against the tribe, stipulated a separate payment for the mixed-blood Chippewa, and reserved hunting rights for the Chippewa. Concluded at St. Peters, Wisconsin Territory, the treaty was signed by Governor Henry Dodge and by numerous chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Chippewa.

Treaty with the Sioux September 29, 1837 This treaty required the Medawakanton Sioux to cede all lands east of the Mississippi, including the islands in the Mississippi River. The United States agreed to pay various amounts through investments and annuities, to pay for the debts of these Sioux, and to provide supplies necessary for agricultural and other endeavors. This treaty was concluded at Washington and signed by Joel R. Poinsett for the United States and by twenty-one chiefs and warriors of the Medawakanton Sioux.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox October 21, 1837 This treaty organized the cession of lands between the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and the rights to hunt, and other purposes, granted the Sauk and Fox on the land ceded in the first article of the treaty of July 15, 1830. They also ceded all claims under the treaties of November 3, 1804, August 4, 1824, July 15, 1830, and September 17, 1836. The treaty also stipulated the manner in which the United States should make payments to the Sauk and Fox. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and by Po-ko-mah (the Plum), Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf), Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish) of the Sauk, and Sa-kapa (son of Quash-qua-mi) and A-ka-ke (the Crow) of the Fox, chiefs and delegates of the Sauk and Fox of Missouri.

Treaty with the Winnebago November 1, 1837

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox October 21, 1837 This treaty organized a land cession to the United States, called for aid in the form of buildings, goods, horses and gifts, investments, and payment of tribal debts, and required the Sauk and Fox to relocate from all lands except those in Kee-o-kuck’s Village, who would relocate in two years. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and by Kee-o-kuck (the Watchful Fox) and twenty-two other Sauk and Fox representatives.

Treaty with the Iowa

Treaty with the Yankton Sioux

November 23, 1837

October 21, 1837 Under this treaty, the Yankton ceded lands described in the second article of the treaty of July 15, 1830. The United States agreed to pay $4,000 for this cession. Concluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and by nine Yankton chiefs and delegates.

www.abc-clio.com

The treaty organized the cession of all lands east of the Mississippi and required the Winnebago to relinquish the right to occupy and hunt on certain lands set aside for their use west of the Mississippi. The tribe was to relocate within eight months. The United States agreed to pay $200,000 toward debtors’ claims, goods, provisions, individual payments, construction, and agriculture. Concluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and by twenty Winnebago chiefs and delegates.

This treaty arranged the cession of lands discussed in the July 15, 1830, treaty. It required the United States to pay $2,500 in horses, goods, and presents upon conclusion of the treaty. Concluded at St. Louis, this treaty was signed by Joshua Pilcher, Indian agent, for the United States and by Ne-omon-ni, Non-che-ning-ga, Wat-che-mon-ne, and Tah-ro-hon for the Iowa tribe.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Creek – November 23, 1838

Treaty with the Chippewa December 20, 1837 This treaty organized the payment for lands ceded in the January 1837 treaty and required the United States to reserve land on the headwaters of the Osage River. It also noted that the sixth article in the January treaty did not entitle the Chippewa to land west of Lake Superior. The treaty also set forth guidelines for payments to the tribe to be made by the United States. Concluded at Flint River in Michigan, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Henry R. Schoolcraft for the United States and by ten chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa.

Treaty with the New York Indians January 15, 1838 This treaty called for land cessions, removal, and the reservation of other lands for the signatory tribes and stipulated methods of payment to them. Concluded at Buffalo Creek, New York, this treaty was signed by Commissioner Ransom H. Gillet for the United States and by numerous chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Seneca, Tuscarora, St. Regis, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida of New York, Green Bay, and the Seneca Reservation.

Treaty with the Chippewa January 23, 1838 This treaty dealt with the sale of the lands ceded by the Chippewa under the January 14, 1837, treaty. Concluded at Saginaw, Michigan, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Henry R. Schoolcraft on behalf of the United States and by Ogima Keegido, Mo-cuck-koosh, Oe-quee-wee-sance, Saw-wur-bon, Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, and Ar-ber-too-quet for the Chippewa.

Treaty with the Oneida February 3, 1838 Under this treaty, the First Christian and Orchard Oneidas ceded lands reserved to them by the February 1831 treaty with the Menominee. Certain portions of the lands were reserved to the Oneida. The treaty also outlined the methods of payment for these cessions. Concluded at Washington, the treaty

www.abc-clio.com

329

was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and by Henry Powles, John Denny (John Sundown), Adam Swamp, Daniel Bread, and Jacob Cornelius for the Oneida.

Treaty with the Iowa October 19, 1838 This treaty outlined the cession to the United States of all lands between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and between the Sauk and Fox and the Sioux, reserving for the Iowa two hundred acres. It also sets forth the methods of payment to be employed by the United States for the cession and obligates the United States to build ten homes at locations chosen by the tribe. Concluded at the Great Nemowhaw subagency, this treaty was signed by John Doughtery, agent of Indian affairs, and by thirteen chiefs and headmen of the Iowa Nation.

Treaty with the Miami November 6, 1838 This treaty called for the cession of certain reservation lands, with some portions of the land to be kept in reserve. It also required the United States to assign new lands west of the Mississippi and outlined the means of compensation to be employed by the United States for the Miami. Concluded in Indiana at the forks of the Wabash River, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Abel C. Pepper for the United States and twenty-three Miami representatives.

Treaty with the Creeks November 23, 1838 This treaty arranged for the dropping of Creeks “claims for property and improvements abandoned or lost, in consequence of their emigration west of the Mississippi” in exchange for $50,000 in stock animals and the proceeds of a $350,000 investment to be made by the United States on behalf of the Creeks for twenty-five years, after which the investment would be appropriated to the tribe. Further financial provisions were made for the McIntosh party of Creek emigrants, for the relocation, and in “consideration of the suffering condition of about 2,500 of Creek nations who were removed to this country as hostiles.” Concluded at Fort Gibson, the treaty was signed by

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

330

Treaty with the Osage – January 11, 1839

Captain William Armstrong and Brevet Brigadier General M. Arbuckle for the United States and by twenty-seven Creeks delegates.

Treaty with the Osage January 11, 1839 Under this treaty, the Osage ceded all claims to lands lying within the boundaries of other tribes or reserved to them under the treaties of November 10, 1808, and June 2, 1825 (except that described in the sixth article). The treaty outlines the means of compensation to be paid to the Osage by the United States. Concluded at Fort Gibson, the treaty was signed by Brigadier General M. Arbuckle for the United States and by more than seventy Osage chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

Treaty with the Miami November 28, 1840 This treaty called for lands to be ceded to the United States, for commissioners to investigate claims, and for payments to be made to John B. Richardville and executor of Francis Godfroy. It stipulated that payments were to be made to the family of Francis Godfroy in lieu of labor, that the United States was to convey certain land to Me-shing-go-me-zia, and that the Miami people were to move to the land stipulated in the treaty. It further stipulated what was to be done if the payment of debts was too great, and gave sections of land to John B. Richardville and Francis Lafountain. The treaty was signed by Samuel Milroy and Allen Hamilton for the United States and by twenty leaders of the Miami.

Treaty with the Wyandot March 17, 1842

Treaty with the Chippewa February 7, 1839 This treaty arranged the sale of lands ceded in Michigan in the January 14, 1837, treaty. Concluded at Lower Saganaw, Michigan, this treaty was signed by John Hulbert, acting superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by Ogima Kegido, Waubredoaince, Muckuk Kosh, Osaw Wauban, Sheegunageezhig, Penayseewabee, Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, and Shawun Epenaysee of the Chippewa.

This treaty called for a cession of lands to the United States, gave a grant from the United States to the Wyandot, and provided for an annuity. It also stipulated that a school was to be built, that the value of improvements was to be paid to the Wyandot, and that debts would be paid in full. It further provided for a blacksmith, a subagent, and an interpreter and required the mission and buildings to remain. It set forth who could share the annuity, what was done with land formerly owned by Horonu, and required the Wyandot to move to their new reservation; and it allowed for a grant and payment to certain persons, including Catherine Walker. The treaty was signed by John Johnston for the United States and by seven leaders of the Wyandot.

Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee September 3, 1839 This treaty arranged the cession of the eastern half of the lands reserved to the Stockbridge and Munsee by the October 7, 1832, treaty with the Menominee. It also outlined the compensation to be paid by the United States. Concluded at Stockbridge, Wisconsin Territory, this treaty was signed by Commissioner Albert Gallup for the United States and by thirty-five representatives of the Stockbridge and Munsee.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Seneca May 20, 1842 This treaty set forth indentures between Ogden and Fellows and the Seneca Indians. Under its terms, the United States agreed to the said indentures and that Seneca who moved from the state of New York were entitled to the benefits thereof. The treaty was signed by Ambrose Spencer and thirty-two leaders of the Seneca.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox – October 11, 1842

Treaty with the Chippewa October 4, 1842 The treaty of 1842 with the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) took place at La Pointe, Wisconsin, between the United States and twenty-three distinct bands of the Ojibwe, which represented two major groups called the Ojibwe of Lake Superior and the Ojibwe of the Mississippi. Like the 1837 treaty with the Ojibwe, the 1842 treaty involved the cession of lands to the United States in exchange for annuity payments, provisions, an agricultural fund, and, most important for the Ojibwe, the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the land they ceded. The land ceded in the treaty of 1842 included the western portion of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the last of the Ojibwe lands in northern Wisconsin. Although the U.S. government had a growing inclination to displace the Ojibwe from their homelands in the 1840s and early 1850s, the 1842 treaty continued the unique tradition of nonremoval established by the United States and the Ojibwe in the treaty of 1837. Pressured by the profitability of the mineral deposits on the southern shore of Lake Superior, the United States commissioned Robert Stuart, former chief factor of the American Fur Company, to acquire the land that contained the valuable resources. Stuart was given instructions by the commissioner of Indian affairs to attempt to include a stipulation in the treaty that would remove the Lake Superior Ojibwe westward to lands held by the Ojibwe of the Mississippi, to form a common territory for both groups. This act of combining Native American groups into political entities that did not exist naturally was characteristic of U.S. policy of that time. The Ojibwe of Lake Superior and the Ojibwe of the Mississippi balked at the idea of being categorized together as well as at the notion of removal. Recognizing the Ojibwes’ concern over the removal clause, Stuart did not force the issue, and the content of the treaty of 1842 was very similar to the treaty of 1837. The Ojibwe retained the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the land they ceded to the United States, but Stuart made it clear that future removal was a possibility. The discretion to remove the Ojibwe at a future date was given to the president of the United States. In exchange for the land in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a portion of northern Wisconsin, the Ojibwe were given annual payments of $12,500 in currency, $10,500 in goods, $2,000 to support two blacksmiths, $1,000 to support two farmers, $1,200 to support two carpen-

www.abc-clio.com

331

ters, $2,000 to support schools, $2,000 for tobacco, and money to settle debts with traders to whom the Ojibwe were in debt. By supporting schools, carpenters, farmers, and blacksmiths, the United States was clearly attempting to inject elements of white society into the Ojibwe culture. Like the missionaries who had established themselves among the Ojibwe, the United States embarked on “civilizing” the Ojibwe by encouraging the Native Americans to adopt a lifestyle similar to that of white society. Paradoxically, the policy of the United States was also to threaten the removal of the Ojibwe, which did nothing to help incorporate them into “civilized” society. After the treaty of 1842 was signed, confusion over which Ojibwe would receive the annuity payments, as well as a growing threat by the United States to remove the Ojibwe, led to another treaty negotiation in 1854. Troy Henderson See also Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854. References and Further Reading Cleland, Charles E. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox October 11, 1842 This treaty arranged for lands to be ceded to the United States and stipulated that the United States would pay for these ceded lands. It further required land to be assigned for permanent residence, blacksmith and gunsmith shops to be maintained, and the boundary to be run and marked. Further, the treaty called for the tribes to move and gave provisions for these moves. It stated that each principal chief was to receive $500 annually and that $30,000 was to be retained at each annual payment. It explained how each payment was to be expended, set forth the application of any portion of annuities, and set aside certain funds for agricultural purposes. The treaty also stipulated that the area where Chief Wa-pel-lo

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

332

Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot – December 14, 1843

was buried, which amounted to 640 acres, was to be given to Mrs. Eliza M. Street. The treaty was signed by John Chambers for the United States and by forty-five leaders of the Sauk and Fox tribes.

Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot December 14, 1843 This agreement stated that the Wyandot Nation should take no better right or interest in and to said lands than was then vested in the Delaware Nation. The agreement was signed by nine Delaware chiefs and six Wyandot chiefs in the presence of John Chambers, the U.S. commissioner for Indian affairs.

to the Methodist Episcopal Church, set provisions and boundaries, and established May 1, 1847, as the date by which the Kansa were to be moved from the ceded lands. It granted to the president of the United States the power to decide whether or not a sufficiency of timber remained on Kansas lands, asked for additional cession by the Kansas, stipulated that a subagent would reside among them, and provided for a smith and support for same. The treaty was signed by Thomas H. Harvey and Richard W. Cummins for the United States and by nineteen leaders of the Kansa tribe.

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc. May 15, 1846

Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole January 4, 1845 This treaty permitted the Seminole tribe to settle in any part of Creek country, rendered the Seminole subject to the Creek council, and stipulated no distinction between them except in pecuniary affairs; and it required Seminole tribe members who had not moved to Creek country to do so immediately. The treaty further required certain contested cases concerning the right of property to be subject to the decision of the president. It allowed for a twentyyear annuity of $3,000 for education for the Creeks, set forth the uses of the education fund and annuities, and stipulated the rations to be issued to the Seminole tribe members who moved to Creek country. It also set forth sums from previous treaties and allowed $1,000 for agricultural implements. The treaty was signed by William Armstrong, P. M. Butler, James Logan, and Thomas L. Judge for the United States and by forty-one leaders of the Creeks and twenty-two leaders of the Seminole.

Treaty with the Kansa Tribe January 14, 1846 This treaty arranged for lands to be ceded to the United States and for the United States to pay for these ceded lands. The treaty provided funds for education and agriculture and for a sum to be paid

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty involved trade regulations, the release of black and white prisoners in Texas, and a limited negotiated justice system. It also stipulated that anyone bringing liquor to the tribe would be punished by law. Blacksmiths, schoolteachers, and preachers of the gospel were to be sent among the tribes to reside among them. The treaty was signed at Council Springs in Robinson County, Texas, near the Brazos River by Commissioners P. M. Butler and M. G. Lewis for the United States and by sixtyone chiefs, counselors, and warriors of the Comanche, I-on-i, Ana-da-ca, Caddo, Lepan, Longwha, Keechy, Tah-wa-carro, Wichita, and Wacoe tribes.

Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation June 5 and 17, 1846 The Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi, the Potawatomi of the Prairie, the Potawatomi of the Wabash, and the Potawatomi of Indiana, subsequent to the year 1828, entered into separate and distinct treaties with the United States by which they were separated and located in different countries. After this treaty, they were to be recognized as the Potawatomi Nation. The main concerns of the treaty were peace, cession, title to former grants and reservations, and payments and provisions for their annual improvement fund and school fund. The treaty also stipulated the means by which the United States would compensate the tribe. The treaty was signed at the agency on the Missouri River near Council Bluffs and at Potawatomi

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Menominee – October 18, 1848

Creek near the Osage River, south and west of the state of Missouri, by T. P. Andrews, Thomas H. Harvey, and G. C. Matlock, commissioners for the United States, and by numerous chiefs and delegates of the Potawatomi bands.

Treaty with the Cherokee August 6, 1846 This treaty was intended to unite the Cherokee Nation with a patent to be issued. It established a judicial system and outlined the means by which the United States would compensate the tribes. Provisions were also made for the heirs of Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot. It was also guaranteed that no rights or claims under the treaty of 1835 or its supplement would be taken away from the Cherokee who were residing in the states east of the Mississippi River. The treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., by three commissioners—Edmund Burke, William Armstrong, and Albion K. Parris— for the United States and by John Ross, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. David Vann, William S. Coody, Richard Taylor, T. H. Walker, Clement V. McNair, Stephen Foreman, John Drew, and Richard Fields signed as delegates of the Cherokee Nation; George W. Adair, John A. Bell, Stand Watie, Joseph M. Lynch, John Huss, and Brice Martin signed as a delegation of the portion of the Cherokee tribe recognized as the Treaty Party. John Brown, Captain Dutch, John L. McCoy, Richard Drew, and Ellis Phillips represented the Western Cherokees, or Old Settlers.

Treaty with the Winnebago October 13, 1846 This treaty was designed to promote peace and to arrange the cession of lands to the United States. It also outlined the means by which the United States agreed to compensate the tribe, and it gave the Winnebago one year to relocate to lands assigned them west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioners Albion K. Parris, John J. Abert, and T. P. Andrews of the United States and by twenty-four chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Winnebago.

www.abc-clio.com

333

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior August 2, 1847 This treaty was designed to promote peaceful relations and to arrange land cessions and determine boundaries. It also stipulated the means by which the United States agreed to compensate the tribe. Concluded at the Fond du Lac of Lake Superior, this treaty was signed by Isaac A. Verplank and Henry M. Rice for the United States and by forty Chippewa chiefs, headmen, and warriors.

Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians August 21, 1847 This treaty was designed to promote peaceful relations and to arrange the cession of Chippewa lands to the United States. Under its terms, the ceded lands were to be held as Indian lands until the president chose to allocate them otherwise. The treaty also stipulated the means by which the United States would compensate the tribe. Concluded at Leech Lake, the treaty was signed by Isaac A. Verplank, Henry M. Rice, and interpreter George Bonja for the United States and by nine chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Chippewa.

Treaty with the Pawnee–Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc. August 6, 1848 This treaty arranged a Pawnee land cession, outlined the means by which the United States would compensate the Pawnee, and arranged for the arbitration of disputes with whites or other tribes. It also allowed the United States to use the timber along the Wood River. Concluded at Fort Childs on the south side of the Nebraska or Great Platte River, the treaty was signed by Lieutenant Colonel Ludwell E. Powell for the United States and by principal chief Chef Malaigne and twelve other Pawnee representatives.

Treaty with the Menominee October 18, 1848 Concluded at Lake Pow-aw-hay-kon-nay, Wisconsin, this treaty outlined the cession of Menominee

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

334

Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe – November 24, 1848

lands and arranged for removal to “tract of land ceded to the said United States by the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, in the treaty of August 2, 1847, and the Pillager band of Chippewa Indians, in the treaty of August 21, 1847.” It allowed the Menominee two years to relocate. The treaty also outlined U.S. responsibilities to the tribe and the means by which the tribe would be compensated. W. Medill, commissioner, signed on the part of the United States, and thirty-seven Indians signed representing the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin.

Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe November 24, 1848 This treaty outlined the cession of rights guaranteed the tribe under certain previous treaties and the means by which the United States would compensate the tribe. Under this treaty, the Stockbridge were allowed one year to relocate to lands set apart for them or to lands west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, the treaty was signed by Morgan L. Martin and Albert G. Ellis for the United States and by Augustin E. Quinney (a sachem), Zeba T. Peters, Peter D. Littleman, Abram Pye, and twenty-three counselors for the Stockbridge.

December 30, 1849 This treaty was intended to bring about peaceful relations. It forbade the Utah to associate with other tribes hostile to the United States and required them to return captives and stolen goods. It also required the Utah to accept boundaries stipulated by the United States, to allow the establishment of military posts and agencies, and to take up agricultural lifestyles. It also outlined the means of compensation to be employed by the United States. Concluded at Abiquiu, New Mexico, the treaty was signed by Indian Agent and Commissioner James S. Calhoun for the United States and by principal chief Quixiachigiate and more than twenty-five other Utah representatives.

Treaty with the Wyandot April 1, 1850 Under this treaty, the United States agreed to pay the Wyandot, for relinquishing claim to certain lands, $100,000 to be invested in government stocks for 5 percent per annum and $85,000 to be paid to the Wyandot or on their drafts. The expenses of negotiating this treaty were to be paid by the United States. The treaty was signed in Washington by Ardavan S. Loughery, commissioner for the United States, and by the head chief and deputies of the Wyandot tribe.

Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)

Treaty with the Navajo

September 7, 1850

September 9, 1849 This treaty was designed to bring about peaceful relations; it called for Navajo recognition of U.S. authority and for the Navajo to release captives and return stolen property, and it allowed the establishment of military posts. It required the tribe to give up individuals suspected in a murder and to allow free passage of U.S. citizens through their lands, and it required the United States to provide gifts. Concluded at Cheille Valley, the treaty was signed by Indian Agent James S. Calhoun and Brevet Lieutenant Colonel John M. Washington for the United States and by Mariano Martinez, head chief, Chapitone, second chief, and five others for the Navajo.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Utah

The Robinson treaties of 1850, negotiated between the Ojibwe of the Upper Great Lakes and the Crown, were essentially land cession treaties whereby the Ojibwe people of northern Ontario granted the Canadian government the right to grant mining companies and others access to certain areas from the shorelines of Lake Huron and Lake Superior “to the height of land.” The Native people reserved some areas for their exclusive use and also retained the right hunt in fish in the ceded territories. Because two treaties were negotiated on behalf of the Crown by the same person, William Benjamin Robinson, and in the same place, Sault Ste. Marie, the fact that there are two separate treaties is often overlooked. The first treaty to be signed is usually

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty) – September 9, 1850

designated the Robinson Superior Treaty, signed on September 7, 1850. This treaty covered lands along the north shore of Lake Superior from Batchewanenng [sic] Bay in the east (northeast of the Sault) to the outlet of the Pigeon River at the far western end of the lake, forming the U.S.-Canada border near what is now Grand Portage, Minnesota. The land cession included all lands and waters “to the height of land,” in reference to the land which was still under the control of the Hudson’s Bay Company (that is, all lands that drained into either James Bay or Hudson Bay). The second of the two treaties is referred to as the Robinson Huron Treaty, and it was signed on September 9, 1850. Of course, the Crown negotiators were the same, but the assembled “chiefs and principal men” decided that the two groups would be better served by negotiating separate treaties, although the language of the two treaties is virtually identical—both groups agreed to relinquish control over much of the land in exchange for an immediate sum of £2,000 British, a “perpetual annuity” of £500 for the Superior Ojibwes, and £600 for the Huron tribes. The Superior tribes sent nine chiefs to the negotiation and retained control of three areas set aside as reserves. The Huron tribes had thirty-eight men sign the treaty, creating seventeen reserves for their bands. As the language of the two treaties is virtually identical, it seems obvious that the two groups conducted extensive discussions between themselves before they agreed to sit down with Mr. Robinson to work on the details of the respective treaties. It should be noted that, in both treaties, the Crown agreed “to allow the said Chiefs and their Tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over the Territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof, as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing; saving and excepting such portions of the said Territory as may from time to time be sold or leased to individuals or companies of individuals, and occupied by them with the consent of the Provincial Government.” This language is quite similar to the language of the Treaty of Washington of 1836 signed by the Ottawa and Chippewa of northern Michigan, which says, “The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.” That the U.S. and Canadian treaties from this general area are quite similar should come as no

www.abc-clio.com

335

surprise, as both sets of treaties were negotiated on behalf of the same peoples, who, although perhaps living on one side of the border or the other (or on both sides over time), nonetheless considered themselves Anishnaabeg first and Americans or Canadians second, if at all. Most notable among these cross-border connections is that of Shawano, the Sault area chief who signed both the U.S. treaty of 1836 and the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. Another notable chief who signed the Robinson Huron Treaty was Shinguakouce, who also signed the treaty of 1820 with Michigan, which was the first land cession treaty of the Upper Great Lakes area (he signed the 1820 treaty with his French pseudonym, Augustin Bart). The treaty of 1820 also recognizes a “perpetual right of fishing at the falls of St. Mary’s” as well as access to the fisheries, as long as such access does not interfere with military or civilian settlements. Phil Bellfy See also Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario. References and Further Reading Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morrison, James. 1996. The Robinson Treaties of 1850: A Case Study. Ottawa: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Quimby, George Irving. 1960. Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes: 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty) September 9, 1850 Nearly identical to the Robinson Superior Treaty, this treaty ceded the lands along the north shore of Lake Superior from Batchewanenng [sic] Bay in the east (northeast of the Sault), to the outlet of the Pigeon River at the far western end of the lake. In return for the ceded lands, the Huron Ojibwes were given an immediate payment of £2,000 British and a “perpetual annuity” payment of £600. The tribe also received reserved areas for their use only in the ceded territory and was allowed to continue to hunt and fish in the territory. This agreement was negotiated by William Benjamin Robinson and the Huron Ojibwe and signed by thirty-eight Huron tribe members.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

336

Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands – July 23, 1851

Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands July 23, 1851 This treaty recognized the peaceful status of the bands and stipulated that liquor laws were to remain in force. The United States agreed to pay the sum of $1,665,000. Concluded at Traverse des Sioux in the Territory of Minnesota, the treaty was signed by Luke Lea, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Alexander Ramsey, governor and ex-officio superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by thirty-five representatives from the Sisseton and Wahpeton.

Treaty with the Sioux–Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands August 5, 1851 This treaty acknowledged peace and confirmed existing liquor laws. In exchange for cession and relinquishment of lands, the United States agreed to pay the sum of $1,410,000. Concluded at Mendota in the Territory of Minnesota, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Luke Lea and Governor Alexander Ramsey and by eight chiefs and fifty-seven other Sioux.

Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc. September 17, 1851 The first Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed at Fort Laramie in southeastern Wyoming on September 17, 1851, established formal relations between the U.S. government and the Northern Plains American Indian nations. The purpose of the treaty was to ensure the safety of the increasing number of overland travelers crossing the plains. The encroaching European American population was competing with American Indians for available resources, and the number of reprisals conducted by both sides was mounting at that time. The treaty was signed on behalf of the United States by D. D. Mitchell, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian agent. Both commissioners were appointed and authorized for this special occasion by the president. The present

www.abc-clio.com

Mandan of the upper Missouri River were among those tribes represented during negotiations leading to the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851. (Library of Congress)

American Indian leaders represented nations residing south of the Missouri River, east of the Rocky Mountains, and north of Texas, namely the Sioux (referring to Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota), Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Crow, Assiniboine, Mandan, and Arikara. The treaty contains eight articles, which bound the Indian nations to make peace with one another, to recognize the right of the United States to establish roads and posts within their respective territories, and to make restitution for any wrongs committed by their people against the citizens of the United States. The Indian nations were further supposed to acknowledge the prescribed boundaries of their respective territories and to select head chiefs, through whom all national business would be conducted. The United States bound itself to protect the Indians against U.S. citizens and to deliver certain annuities. If any Indian nation violated a single provision of the treaty, the annuities could be withheld. The Senate ratified the first Treaty of Fort Laramie on May 24, 1852; however, an amendment changing the annuities from fifty to ten years, with

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Apache – July 1, 1852

an additional five years at the discretion of the president, was subject to acceptance by the Indian nations. Assent of all the nations was procured; the last were the Crow, who assented on September 18, 1854. The treaty was never published as ratified in the U.S. Statutes at Large; consequently, there has been some discussion concerning its validity. The Department of the Interior inadvertently failed to certify the ratification of the treaty by the Indian nations to the State Department; therefore, the treaty was not promulgated by the president of the United States. However, in subsequent agreements and by decisions of the court of claims (Moore v. the United States and Roy v. the United States), the treaty was recognized as in force. Due to the lack of good interpreters, the terms of the treaty were not fully explained to most of the Indian leaders present at the council grounds. The ten thousand Indians gathered at their camps near Fort Laramie paid more attention to the fact that many nations that had previously fought each other were engaging in diverse ways of peacemaking there, and that celebrations, dancing, hand games, and various kinds of races were continuing for several days. The Lakota, dominating the treaty negotiations on the Indian side, had significant influence on the demarcation of the territorial boundaries. Although most of the Indian nations retained their usual territory, the Northern Cheyenne were not given title to their land, which adjoined the Lakota land. Instead, they were assigned a territory, together with the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho, between the North Fork of the Platte River and the Arkansas River in the south. This treaty gave the Lakota rights to the Black Hills and other land that was inhabited by the Northern Cheyenne, thus provoking the dispute over the Black Hills between these nations. Drawing the boundaries of territories assigned to the Indian nations made it possible for the United States to negotiate with specific nations to secure land cessions from them. In the long run, the treaty contributed to the ultimate loss of almost all Indian land involved, which was eventually opened up for settlement by European Americans. Temporary peace, secured by the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, enabled many settlers to cross the plains and populate what are today the states of Oregon and California. The fact that, in an effort to secure better control over the Indian nations, they were made responsible for any crimes committed

www.abc-clio.com

337

within their territories led to many accusations, although not always correct ones. A treaty originally written to assure peace and to serve as a costeffective alternative to war fueled disputes, leading ultimately to the Indian Wars and the subsequent decimation of Indian populations. Antonie Dvorakova See also Fort Laramie, Wyoming. References and Further Reading Berthrong, Donald J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles Joseph, ed. 1972. Indian Treaties, 1778–1883. New York: Interland. Stands In Timber, John, and Margot Liberty. 1998. Cheyenne Memories. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.

Treaty with the Chickasaw June 22, 1852 This treaty established that an Indian agent would reside among the Chickasaw, who were to be settled in Tennessee, and provided burial ground forever. Payment for the reservation was not to exceed $1.25 per acre and was to be decided by the secretary of the interior. The Chickasaw requested that the whole sum of their national funds remain in trust. For negotiating this treaty, $1,500 was to be paid directly to the Chickasaw Nation. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Kenton Harper for the United States; Commissioners Colonel Edmund Pickens, Benjamin S. Love, and Sampson Folsom were chosen by the Chickasaw tribe of Indians to sign for them.

Treaty with the Apache July 1, 1852 This treaty set forth a negotiated justice system, stipulated that attacks in the territory of Mexico were to cease, forbade the taking of captives, and required the surrender of all captives previously taken. Military posts, agencies, trading houses, and territorial boundaries were established. Concluded at Santa Fe, New Mexico, the treaty was signed by Colonel E. V. Sumner, U.S. commander in the Ninth Department, and John Greiner, Indian agent, for the United States and by seven Apache chiefs.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

338

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache – July 27, 1853

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache July 27, 1853 This treaty acknowledged peace among the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes inhabiting the territory south of the Arkansas River and between the United States and the tribes, allowed the United States to build roads and military posts, and called for restitution for any damage or injury made by the tribe. It stipulated that attacks in the territory of Mexico were to cease, forbade the taking of captives, and required the surrender of all captives previously taken. The United States agreed to pay the tribes $18,000 per year. Annuities would be withheld for noncompliance with the treaty or paid in goods, at the discretion of the president. Concluded at Fort Atkinson in the Indian Territory, the treaty was signed by Indian agent Thomas Fitzpatrick for the United States and by nine chiefs and seven headmen of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes.

Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes

treaty, the United States had the right to establish farms as payment of the annuities at the president’s discretion. Concluded at Table Rock near the Rogue River in the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Samuel H. Culver, Indian agent, for the United States and by three chiefs and other headmen of the bands of the Rogue River tribe of Indians.

Treaty with the Umpqua–Cow Creek Band September 19, 1853 This treaty required the Cow Creek tribe to give up all claim to their lands but allowed temporary occupation of part of the land until permanent homes could be selected. Annuities were to be paid in monies and in goods. Houses were to be erected, travelers protected, and a negotiated justice system put in place. Concluded at Cow Creek, Umpqua Valley, in the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and by three Cow Creek chiefs.

September 8, 1853 This was a treaty of peace, which called for a cession of hostilities and the return of all the property taken from the whites, in battle or otherwise, to either General Joseph Lane or the Indian agent. It established a negotiated justice system and, in return for payment in goods, required the surrender of firearms belonging to the tribe. Under the treaty, tribal land sales would defray the cost of property destroyed by the tribe during the war, not to exceed $15,000. An agent would reside near the tribe and enforce the terms of the agreement. The treaty was signed by Joseph Lane, commander of the forces of Oregon Territory, for the United States; and by Joe, principal chief of the Rogue River tribe; Sam, subordinate chief; and Jim, subordinate chief, on the part of the tribes under their jurisdiction.

Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri March 15, 1854 This treaty concerned land cession and new boundaries. Annuities were to be paid in monies and goods. The United States was to establish a gristmill and a sawmill, to provide a blacksmith, and to employ an experienced farmer to instruct the tribe in agriculture. The tribe agreed to peace and requested that no liquor be brought into their territory. Roads, highways, and railways were to be built through the reservation, with just compensation. The United States paid Lewis Barnard the sum of $300 for service to the tribes. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by seven chiefs of the Otoe and Missouri tribes.

Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe September 10, 1853 The treaty concerns land cession, temporary occupancy of the land until a permanent home could be provided, buildings to be erected, protection of travelers, and restitution of stolen property. Under the

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Omaha March 16, 1854 This treaty concerns cession of lands to the United States, removal of the Omaha to lands reserved for

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri – May 18, 1854

them, protection from hostile tribes, establishment of a gristmill and a sawmill, provision of a blacksmith, construction of roads and railways, a grant to the Presbyterian Church, and relinquishment of former claims. Annuities were to be paid to the tribe in monies and goods. Lewis Sounsosee was paid $1,000 for services to the tribe. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by seven chiefs of the Omaha tribe.

339

1848. The United States agreed to cede the tract of country lying upon the Wolf River in Wisconsin. The treaty also explained payment arrangements. Concluded at the Falls of Wolf River, Wisconsin, the treaty was signed by Francis Huebschmann, superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by twenty-one chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Menominee tribe.

Treaty with the Iowa May 17, 1854

Treaty with the Delaware May 6, 1854 This treaty concerns the cession of land, establishment of a reservation, construction of roads, provisions made for Christian tribal members, and a negotiated justice system. The introduction of liquor was to be suppressed. Annuities were to be paid in monies or invested, and the value of the school on the reservation was to remain at the previous rate of interest. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by nine delegates of the Delaware tribe.

Treaty with the Shawnee May 10, 1854 This treaty concerns land cession, new boundaries and payments for the cession of land, land grants, and the building of roads and railways. A negotiated justice system was established, and Congress was given authority to create laws to further carry out the treaty. The Shawnee agreed to suppress the use of liquor. The treaty was signed in Washington by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by eight delegates representing the Shawnee.

Treaty with the Menominee May 12, 1854 Under the terms of this treaty, the United States transferred to the Menominee all the tract of land ceded by the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior. The Menominee agreed to cede, sell, and relinquish to the United States all the lands assigned to them under the treaty of October 18,

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty concerns land cession, with the exception of a “small strip of land on the south side of the Missouri River . . .” described in the second article of a treaty concluded with the Iowa and the Missouri band of Sac and Fox on September 17, 1836. The Iowa immediately were to pursue agriculture, to allow the building of roads and railways, to suppress liquor, to release all claims from former treaties, and to give Congress authority to create new laws to promote the interests, peace, and happiness of the Iowa people. Additionally, the treaty discussed proceeds from the sale of lands, disposition of ceded lands, division of land, and land grants; stipulated that private debts could not to be paid out of general funds; and allowed a part of the funds set aside by the treaty of October 19, 1838, to be spent and the remainder to be held in trust. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by four delegates of the Iowa tribe.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri May 18, 1854 Under this treaty, the Sauk and Fox of Missouri ceded to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the country assigned to them by the treaty concluded on September 17, 1836. The treaty detailed payment for the cession of lands and the disposition of the reservation. Provisions were made respecting the funds invested under treaty of October 21, 1837. Other concerns of the treaty were the retention of the present farm and mill, a grant to the Board of Foreign Missions, the building of roads and railways, the suppression of liquor, and the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

340

Treaty with the Kickapoo – May 18, 1854

authority given to Congress to create new laws. The tribe released the United States from all claims or demands from previous treaties and stipulated that private debts were not to be charged on the general fund. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by five delegates of the Sauk and Fox of Missouri.

Treaty with the Kickapoo May 18, 1854 The main concerns of this treaty were the cession of land, the reservation of land for a permanent home, payment for cession and improvements, a land grant for Peter Cadue (interpreter), and the building of roads. The treaty recognized the Kickapoos’ desire that liquor not be brought into the territory and their promise of peace with U.S. citizens and among themselves. Private debts were not to be paid from general funds, and Congress could create new laws concerning the management of the treaty. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by five delegates of the Kickapoo tribe.

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc.

Treaty with the Miami June 5, 1854 This treaty concerned cession of lands, reservation for homes and schools, building of roads, repair of the mill and schoolhouse, disposition of ceded lands, sale of reservation, and payment for cession. The remaining annuity installments, under the treaty of November 28, 1840, were to be divided and paid. The blacksmith and the miller were to continue to serve the tribe. Other payments for release of claims to previous treaties were decided upon, and private debts were not to be paid from the general fund. Further, the conduct of the tribe was discussed, and Congress was authorized to create new laws to manage the treaty. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by five delegates representing the Miami tribe and five Miami tribe members who were residents of the state of Indiana.

Treaty with the Creeks June 13, 1854 This is a supplementary article to the treaty with the Creek tribes made and concluded at Fort Gibson on November 23, 1838. It annulled the third and fourth articles of that treaty, and funds were to be divided. It was signed by W. H. Garrett, U.S. agent for the Creeks, and by four delegates representing the Creek tribes.

May 30, 1854 The main concerns of the treaty were unification of the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankeshaw, and Wea tribes; cession and reservation; tribe conduct; and building of roads. The treaty stipulated that ceded lands were to be surveyed, and it provided for the selection of lots, the sale of land, the proceeds from land sale, and a land grant to the American Indian Mission Association. It further provided for persons omitted in the schedule, and settlements by others were not permitted until after tribe selections. The tribes were to relinquish all annuities and claims under former treaties, and payment was determined for those releases. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by five delegates representing the united tribes of Kaskaskia and Peoria, Piankeshaw, and Wea.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chippewa September 30, 1854 Negotiations for the treaty of 1854 with the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) took place at La Pointe, Wisconsin, between the United States and two groups of the Ojibwe: the Ojibwe Lake Superior and the Ojibwe of the Mississippi. In the 1854 treaty, the Ojibwe ceded their lands in northeastern Minnesota to the United States in exchange for annuity payments over twenty years and the creation of a patchwork of reservations within the land ceded by the Ojibwe in the treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854. In something of a compromise between the U.S. government, which had unsuccessfully attempted to remove the Ojibwe from their lands in the late 1840s and early 1850s, and the Ojibwe, who had strongly asserted their

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa – September 30, 1854

desire to remain on their homelands, the 1854 treaty created a reservation system, and the Ojibwe retained their rights to hunt, fish, and gather on all of the lands they ceded. Yet, because of the growing presence of white settlers in the late 1800s and 1900s on the land the Ojibwe had once occupied, the opportunity for the Ojibwe to continue to live in a traditional lifestyle dwindled after 1854. The principal issue that led to the treaty of 1854 with the Ojibwe centered on removal. In 1850, President Zachary Taylor issued an order that revoked the privileges of the Ojibwe under the treaties of 1837 and 1842 and called for the removal of the Ojibwe to the lands they had not yet ceded. This decision sparked numerous petitions from missionaries, American citizens, and Ojibwe leaders who stood staunchly against the removal of the Ojibwe. In 1852, Ojibwe leaders Pishake, Kisketuhug, and Oshaga traveled from La Pointe to Washington to argue their case to President Fillmore. Eventually, the United States relented, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny sent agents David Herriman and Henry Gilbert to La Pointe in 1854 to negotiate a treaty with the Ojibwe that would purchase for the United States the mineral-rich district in northeastern Minnesota and set up reservations for the Ojibwe on the land they ceded. The Ojibwe, who preferred the creation of reservations to removal, agreed to meet at La Pointe for treaty negotiations. More than four thousand Ojibwe meet at La Pointe in 1854 to take part in or witness the treaty negotiations. Instead of combining the Ojibwe of the Mississippi and the Ojibwe of Lake Superior into a single entity to represent the Ojibwe, as previous treaty negotiators had done, Henry Gilbert recognized the resentment between the two groups and separated them during the negotiations. Treaty negotiations concluded with the Ojibwe of Lake Superior receiving two-thirds of the annuity benefits and the Ojibwe of the Mississippi receiving the remaining one-third. The Ojibwe ceded the land in northeastern Minnesota for twenty-year annuities in the form of money, cattle, cooking utensils, building materials, funds for education, money for the settlement of debts with traders, and various other funds and supplies designed to assist assimilation into white society. Of more importance, the 1854 treaty also set up a group of small reservations for the Ojibwe dispersed across the lands they ceded in northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Reservations were established for the following Ojibwe bands in 1854:

www.abc-clio.com

341

Millard Fillmore was vice president when he succeeded to the presidency upon the death of Zachary Taylor in July 1850. Taylor had ordered removal of the Chippewa (Ojibwe) to unceded lands prior to his death. Chippewa leaders then petitioned Fillmore to rescind that order, setting the stage for an 1854 treaty. (Library of Congress)

L’Anse and Vieux De Sert, La Pointe, Lac De Flambeau, Lac Court Orielles, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, and Ontonagon. The Ojibwe retained their rights to hunt and fish on the lands they ceded under the treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854, yet the growing presence of white settlers throughout the late 1800s and 1900s led to the depletion of resources and the impracticability of maintaining a traditional lifestyle. Thus, the treaty of 1854 and the creation of the reservation system was a watershed in Ojibwe history that significantly altered the Ojibwe lifestyle. Troy Henderson See also Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842. References and Further Reading Cleland, Charles E. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

342

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw – November 4, 1854

Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

the Quil-si-eton and Na-hel-ta bands of the Chasta tribe, the Cow-nan-ti-co, Sa-cher-i-ton, and Na-al-ye bands of Scotons, and the Grave Creek band of Umpqua.

Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw

November 29, 1854

November 4, 1854 This was an agreement by the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes concerning the second article of a treaty on January 17, 1837, settling district boundary disputes between the Chickasaw and Choctaw. It was signed by five Choctaw and five Chickasaw in the presence of William K. McKean and Douglas H. Cooper, U.S. Indian agent.

Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe

The main concerns of this treaty were cession, residence on the reservation, removal from said reserve if expedient, removal from ceded lands, payments for cession and expense of removal, survey and allotment of reserve, blacksmith shop, power of future states over restrictions limited, conduct of the tribes, building of roads, annuities not to be taken for debt, and some annuity payments made in goods. Concluded at Calapooia Creek, Douglas County, Oregon Territory, the treaty was signed for the United States by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and by ten chiefs and heads of the confederated bands of the Umpqua tribe and of the Calapooia residing in Umpqua Valley.

November 15, 1854 This was an agreement between Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and twelve chiefs and headmen of the Rogue River tribe. The treaty allowed other tribes to settle on the Table Rock Reserve and provided for the payment of annuities, for the building of roads, and for possible removal from the reserve. It also specified arrangements in the event the treaty was not ratified or no tribes were removed to the reserve.

Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri December 9, 1854 This treaty was to be taken and considered as a supplement to the treaty made on March 15, 1854, to clarify reservation boundaries. It was signed at Nebraska City, Nebraska, by George Hepner, Indian agent, for the United States and by two chiefs and two headmen of the confederate tribes of the Otoe and Missouri tribes.

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc. November 18, 1854 This treaty’s main concerns were cession, removal to Table Rock Reserve, payments, provision in case of removal from the reserve, stipulations for all tribes on the reserve, survey and allotment of said reserve, annuities not to be taken for debt, and the conduct of the tribes. Concluded at the council ground opposite the mouth of Applegate Creek on the Rogue River in the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was signed for the United States by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and by seven chiefs and headmen of

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc. December 26, 1854 This treaty’s main concerns were cession, reservation for the signatory tribes and removal thereto, building of roads, rights to fish, payments for cession and expenses of removal, conduct of tribes, intemperance, schools and shops, and slaves to be freed. No foreign trade was allowed, and no foreign tribal

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Wyandot – January 31, 1855

members were allowed to reside on the reservation without consent of the agent. Concluded on the Shenah-nam, or Medicine Creek, in the Territory of Washington, the treaty was signed by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs of the said territory, and sixty-two chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawskin, S’Homamish, Stehchass, T’ Peek-sin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish tribes and bands occupying the lands lying around the head of Puget Sound and the adjacent inlets.

343

$15,000 was appropriated for expenses of removal, settlement and lots could be assigned to individuals, and whites were not allowed to reside on the reservation without permission. Tribes were to preserve friendly relations, to pay for depredations, to be peaceful, to free all slaves, and to surrender tribal offenders. Further, the tribes were not allowed foreign trade. The United States was to establish a school, to provide instructors, and to furnish mechanics, shops, and physicians. Concluded at Múcklte-óh, or Point Elliott, in the Territory of Washington, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs, and by numerous chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the tribes.

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc. January 22, 1855 This treaty’s main concerns were cession, temporary reservation, protection from other hostile tribes, removal to a home, payments, provision if any refused to sign the treaty, provision if any claim to territory north of the Columbia River was established; provision of a physician, a schoolteacher, a blacksmith, and a superintendent of farming operations; survey and allotment of reservation, conduct of tribes, intemperance, and building of roads. Concluded at Dayton, Oregon Territory, the treaty was signed for the United States by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and seventeen chiefs of the confederated bands of Indians residing in the Willamette Valley.

Treaty with the S’Klallam

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc.

Treaty with the Wyandot

January 22, 1855

Under the terms of this treaty, the Wyandot became U.S. citizens, with some exceptions. Other treaty concerns were cession, partition of said lands among the Wyandot, patents, payments, and appraisal of the improvements. The Wyandot released claims under previous treaties and received payments in lieu thereof. Grantees under former treaty of March 17, 1842, were permitted to locate elsewhere. Concluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by the following chiefs and delegates of the Wyandot tribe of Indians: Tan-roomee, Matthew Mudeator, John Hicks, Silas Armstrong, George J. Clark, and Joel Walker.

This treaty’s concerns were cession, boundaries, reservation, whites not to reside on said reserve, privileges of the tribes, payments for cession and removal, tribes to be removed to other reservations, and survey and allotment of land. Concluded at Hahdskus, or Point No Point, Suquamish Head, in the Territory of Washington, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs, and by fifty-six chiefs and delegates of the different villages of the S’Klallams occupying certain lands on the Straits of Fuca and Hood’s Canal in the Territory of Washington.

January 31, 1855

This treaty was between the United States and the Dwámish, Suquámish, Sk-táhlmish, Sam-áhmish, Smalh-kamish, Skope-áhmish, St-káh-mish, Snoquálmoo, Skai-wha-mish, N’ Quentl-má-mish, Sk-táh-lejum, Stoluck-whá-mish, Sha-ho-mish, Skágit, Kik-iállus, Swin-á-mish, Squin-áh-mish, Sah-ku-méhu, Noo-whá-ha, Nook-wa-cháh-mish, Mee-sée-quaquilch, Cho-bah-áh-bish, and other allied and subordinate tribes and bands. The treaty concerns were cession, boundaries, reservation, schools, tribes to be settled on the reservation within one year, rights and privileges, and payment of annuities. Under the treaty, tribe members could be removed to reservation,

www.abc-clio.com

January 26, 1855

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

344

Treaty with the Makah – January 31, 1855

Treaty with the Makah January 31, 1855 The main concerns of the treaty were the surrender of lands, boundaries, reservations, building of roads, rights and privileges, provisions, payments, and appropriation for removal and for clearing and fencing land. The tribes were to be settled on the reservation within a year; whites were not to reside on said reserve; other friendly tribes were allowed to reside on the reservation; tribes could be removed from the reservation and/or consolidated; annuities were not to be used to pay individual debts and would be withheld from those who drank liquor. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to free all slaves, and to surrender tribal offenders. Foreign trade was not allowed, and foreign tribes were not to reside on the reserve. The United States was to establish a school, to provide instructors, and to furnish mechanics, shops, and a physician. Concluded at Neah Bay in the Territory of Washington, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs, and by Tse-kauwtl, head chief of the Makah tribe, and forty-one delegates of several villages of the Makah tribe occupying the country around Cape Classett or Cape Flattery.

of lands; payment for cession and sale of lands; provision for a permanent home; survey and allotment of a permanent home; and payments under former treaties. Annuities were to be withheld from the illbehaved. This treaty was in lieu of the agreement of August 6, 1853, which was never ratified. The United States was to pay the cost of the trip to Washington. Concluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States and by ten chiefs and delegates from the Winnebago tribe.

Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc. June 9, 1855

This treaty’s main concerns were cession, reservations for permanent homes, boundaries, survey and allotment of reservations, payments in monies and goods, preemption rights, land grants to mixedblood persons, establishment of a judicial system, building of roads, and conduct of the tribe. Concluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the United States, by three chiefs and delegates representing the Mississippi bands of Chippewa, and by thirteen chiefs and delegates representing the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish bands of Chippewa.

This treaty was between the United States and the Wallawalla, Cayuse, and Umatilla tribes and bands occupying lands partly in Washington Territory and partly in Oregon Territory. The main concerns of the treaty were cession of lands, boundaries, reservation, rights and privileges, provisions, allowance for improvements, payments, land allotments, and patents; whites were not to reside (with exception) on the reserve; tribes were to settle within one year. The United States was to build sawmills, schools, mechanics’ shops, and a trading post and was to employ mechanics and teachers. The United States also agreed to build dwelling houses and other things for head chiefs. Ten thousand dollars was expended to open a wagon road from Powder River, and a right-of-way was reserved for roads through the reservation. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, and to submit to regulations. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. Concluded at Camp Stevens in the Walla Walla valley, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Oregon Territory; thirty-six chiefs, headmen, and delegates signed on behalf of the tribes.

Treaty with the Winnebago

Treaty with the Yakama

February 27, 1855

June 9, 1855

The main concerns of this treaty were cession of land granted pursuant to a treaty of October 13, 1846; sale

This treaty was between the United States and the Yakama, Palouse, Pisquouse, Wenatshapam, Klikatat,

Treaty with the Chippewa February 22, 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw – June 22, 1855

Klinquit, Kow-was-say-ee, Li-ay-was, Skin-pah, Wishham, Shyik, Ochechote, Kah milt-pah, and Se-ap-cat, confederated tribes and bands. The main concerns of the treaty were the cession of lands, boundaries, reservation, privileges, improvements, payments, building of roads, survey and allotment. Whites were not to reside (with exception) on the reserve. The United States was to establish schools and to build a sawmill, a flour mill, mechanics’ shops, and a hospital. The United States also agreed to pay the head chief, Kamaiakun, a salary. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. The Wenatshapam fishery was reserved for the benefit of the tribe. Concluded at Camp Stevens in the Walla Walla valley, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and for the tribes and bands by fourteen chiefs, headmen, and delegates.

345

Lawyer, head chief of the Nez Percé, and fifty-six other delegates.

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw June 22, 1855 The main concerns of this treaty were the boundaries of the Choctaw and Chickasaw country, lands guaranteed to them, provision of sales and reversion of said lands, cession of land by the Choctaw, lease by the Choctaw and Chickasaw for the use of other tribes, and payments. Districts were established for each tribe, although either tribe could settle within the limits of the other. Extradition of criminals between the districts was required, as well as extradition of criminals to the United States or particular states. The current laws and government were to remain in force until altered. The tribes could be self-governed as long as they were lawful. There was to be amnesty between the tribes, and the United States was to protect tribal members from hostiles and whites not

Treaty with the Nez Percé June 11, 1855 This treaty was between the United States and the Nez Percé, occupying lands lying partly in Oregon and partly in Washington Territories between the Cascade and Bitterroot Mountains. The main concerns of the treaty were cession of lands, boundaries, reservation, improvements, building of roads, privileges, payments, survey, and allotment; whites were not to reside on the reservation without permission. The United States was to establish schools and to build a sawmill, mechanics’ shops, and a hospital. The United States also agreed to pay the head chief a salary and to build him a home, and other benefits. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. The tribe granted William Craig the land he then occupied. The treaty was concluded at Camp Stevens in the Walla Walla valley and signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon Territory, and for the Nez Percé by Aleiya, or

www.abc-clio.com

Peter Pitchlynn (1806–1881) was a Choctaw leader and diplomat who helped negotiate the removal of the Choctaw to Oklahoma, and served as the Choctaw tribal delegate in Washington, D.C. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

346

Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon – June 25, 1855

subject to their jurisdiction and laws. Military posts, post roads, agencies, and a right-of-way for railroads and telegraphs were to be established. Some questions concerning previous treaties and payments were to be submitted to the Senate for decision. This treaty was to supersede all former treaties with the Choctaw and all inconsistent treaties with the Chickasaw or between said tribes. The United States was to pay the commissioners. The treaty was concluded in Washington and signed for the United States by Commissioner George W. Manypenny; by Peter P. Pitchlynn, Israel Folsom, Samuel Garland, and Dixon W. Lewis, on the part of the Choctaw; and by Edmund Pickens and Sampson Folsom on the part of the Chickasaw.

Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon

to reside on the reservation without permission; further, tribal members could be removed from the reservation. Additional points were the building of roads, rights and privileges, and annuities. The United States was to establish an agricultural and industrial school and to employ a blacksmith, a carpenter, a farmer, and a physician. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in self-defense, to free all slaves, and to surrender offenders. No foreign trade was allowed, and no foreign tribes were to reside on the reservation. This treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and for the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute by thirty-one chiefs, headmen, and delegates.

Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc.

June 25, 1855 The main concerns of this treaty were cession, boundaries, reservation, rights and privileges, provision in case any band did not accede to the treaty, allowance for improvements, payments, stipulations on annuities, patents, and building of roads; whites were not to reside on the reservation without permission. Fifty thousand dollars additional was to be expending for buildings. The United States was to erect sawmills, a schoolhouse, and other buildings and to furnish farmers, mechanics, and a physician. Dwelling houses and a salary were to be given to head chiefs, but any successor to a head chief would take same. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, and to refrain from making war except in self-defense. This treaty was concluded at Wasco, near The Dalles on the Columbia River in Oregon Territory, and was signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by fourteen chiefs and numerous headmen of the confederated tribes and bands of Indians residing in Middle Oregon.

July 16, 1855

Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.

Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa

July 1, 1855 This treaty was between the United States and the different tribes and bands of the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute. Its main concerns were the surrender of lands, boundaries, reservation within the Territory of Washington, and appropriations for removal and for clearing and fencing lands. Whites were not

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty was between the United States and the confederated tribes of the Flathead, Kootenai, and Upper Pend d’Oreilles. The main treaty concerns were cession of land, boundaries, reservation, survey and allotment, guarantee against certain claims of the Hudson Bay Company, allowances for improvements, building of roads, rights and privileges, and payments; whites were not to reside on the reservation without permission. The United States was to establish schools, mechanics’ shops, and a hospital. The head chiefs of the tribes were to receive a salary. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor in excess. Concluded at Hell Gate in the Bitterroot Valley, the treaty was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and for the tribes by eighteen chiefs, headmen, and delegates.

July 31, 1855 The main concern of this treaty was the withdrawal of unsold lands, specified use for bands, individual land grants to tribal members, and a promise that a list of entitlement would be prepared by the Indian agent by class. Possession was to be taken at once;

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Blackfeet – October 17, 1855

sale within ten years was forbidden, but there were restrictions on the sale of said lands. A provision was made in case of death. Grants were possible for churches and schools. Additional concerns were payments, appropriations for blacksmith shops, release of liabilities under former treaties, continued employment for interpreters, dissolution of tribal organization in most respects, and the detailing of how future treaties would be negotiated. Concluded at the city of Detroit, Michigan, the treaty was signed by Commissioners George W. Manypenny and Henry C. Gilbert for the United States and by the Ottawa and Chippewa delegates of Michigan, parties to the treaty of March 28, 1836.

Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie August 2, 1855 This treaty dealt with three main concerns: the surrender of fishing rights, payments to the tribe, and a land grant to Chief Oshawwawno. Concluded at Detroit, Michigan, the treaty was signed by Commissioners George W. Manypenny and Henry C. Gilbert for the United States and by twelve chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie.

347

Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc. August 2, 1855 The main concerns of this treaty were the lands to be withdrawn from sale, land grants to individual tribal members, and payments in full of previous claims. Other concerns were cession, release of liability, surrender of annuities, and land entries. An interpreter was to be provided, and the tribal organization was to be dissolved. The treaty was signed in Detroit, Michigan, by Commissioners George W. Manypenny and Henry C. Gilbert for the United States and by the Chippewa of Saginaw, parties to the treaty of January 14, 1837, and that portion of the band of Chippewa Indians of Swan Creek and Black River, parties to the treaty of May 9, 1836, and now remaining in the State of Michigan.

Treaty with the Blackfeet October 17, 1855 This treaty was between the United States and the Blackfoot, the Flathead, the Kootenai, and the Nez Percé tribes, who occupied, for the purposes of hunting, the territory on the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. The main concerns of the treaty were

Blackfoot on horseback, chasing buffalo near Three Buttes, Montana. Artwork by John M. Stanley c. 1853–1855. (National Archives and Records Administration)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

348

Treaty with the Molala – December 21, 1855

provisions of peace, protection against depredations, and recognition of the Blackfoot territory as common hunting ground. Settlement by the tribes was not permitted on the hunting ground; however, citizens could pass through and live in the Indian Territory. Rules for entering and leaving the hunting ground were established. All tribes were to remain in their respective territories except when hunting. The Blackfoot Nation was designated a certain territory and would receive annual payments. Other concerns were protection against depredations, building of roads, telegraph lines, and military posts. Annuities would be withheld in case of violation of the treaty and would not be taken for individual debt. The tribes requested that liquor be excluded from their country. The treaty was signed at the council ground on the Upper Missouri, near the mouth of the Judith River, in the Territory of Nebraska by Commissioners A. Cumming and Isaac I. Stevens for the United States and by numerous chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Blackfoot, Flathead, Kootenai, and Nez Percé.

Treaty with the Molala

Treaty with the Menominee February 11, 1856 This treaty was an amendment to the treaty entered into at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, on February 5, 1856. The main concerns of the treaty were cession, payment for said cession, authorization of Congress to create new laws, suppression of use of liquor, annuities, and rights-of-way for roads. This treaty was signed at Keshena, Wisconsin, by Commissioner Francis Huebschmann for the United States and by twenty-seven Menominee.

Treaty with the Creeks, Etc.

December 21, 1855 The main concerns of this treaty were cession, boundaries, removal to reservation, and payments. Rights and privileges of former treaties were to be secured, and provision made for the establishment of a flourmill and a sawmill, a blacksmith and tin shop, and a manual-labor school; a carpenter, a joiner, and an additional farmer were to be employed. Expense of removal was to be borne by the United States, and rations were to be furnished to the tribe. An appropriation was made to extinguish title, and so on, of white settlers to lands in Grand Round Valley. It was not stated where the treaty was signed. This treaty was signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by four chiefs and headmen of the Molala or Molel tribe.

Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee February 5, 1856 This was an amendment to the treaty with the Menominee of February 28, 1831. It made many provisions and stipulations regarding payments, claims, cessions, placement of dislocated tribes, education,

www.abc-clio.com

grounds for a cemetery, construction of roads, alcohol, and inconsistent treaties. The treaty was signed at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, by Commissioner Francis Huebschmann for the United States and by William Mohawk and Joshua Wilson, delegates of the Stockbridge and Munsee tribes, and such of the Munsee who were included in the treaty of September 3, 1839, and were yet residing in the state of New York.

August 7, 1856 The main concerns of this treaty were the cession by the Creeks to the Seminole, boundaries, and a guarantee of countries to the Seminole and the Creeks. No state or territory was to pass laws for the tribes, and said countries were not to be included in any state or territory without the tribes’ consent. The Creeks released all title to other lands and all claims against the United States, with some exceptions. The Seminole also released claims. Payments to the Creeks and the Seminole were decided. The United States was to remove the Seminole, who would emigrate, and to give the Seminole certain supplies. The western Seminole were to send a delegation to Florida. A tract of land was set apart for the Florida Seminole. Other concerns were the rights of the Creeks and the Seminole in each other’s countries, extradition of criminals between said countries, extradition of criminals to the United States or to the states, and the establishment of a justice system. Additional concerns were building of railroads, telegraphs, posts, and agencies, and the regulations respecting same. Traders were to pay for the use of land and timber. Protection of the tribes was secured, and amnesty was declared. This treaty superseded former treaties. Concluded at the city of Washington,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Yankton Sioux – April 19, 1858

the treaty was signed by George W. Manypenny for the United States and by six commissioners on the part of the Creeks and four commissioners on the part of the Seminole.

Treaty with the Pawnee September 24, 1857 The main concerns of the treaty were lands ceded; reservation; payments; establishment of manual labor schools; supply of tools, farming utensils, and stock; establishment of a mill; and dwellings for interpreter; protection of the Pawnee in their new homes; and the requirement to keep children in school. Additionally, the United States was to furnish six laborers; $2,000 was to be paid to Samuel Allis, and payment in monies or goods was to be made to guides for services rendered to the United States. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in selfdefense, and to surrender offenders. Concluded at Table Creek, Nebraska Territory, the treaty was signed by Commissioner James W. Denver for the United States and by sixteen chiefs and headmen of the four confederate bands of the Pawnee.

349

Treaty with the Ponca March 12, 1858 The concerns of the treaty were cession of lands; reservation; boundaries; release of claims; U.S. stipulations; protection of the Ponca; provisions; payments and annuities; and appropriations for building homes, a sawmill, a gristmill, and a mechanic’s shop and for furnishing apprentices. Children were to be kept in a school maintained by the United States. Scrip of 160 acres each was given to those who chose to leave the tribe and reside among the whites and to Francis Roy, interpreter. The United States was to maintain military posts, roads, and the like. The Ponca were to maintain peace, to pay for depredations, to refrain from making war except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were not to be taken for individual debts and were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and, on the part of the Ponca tribe, by Wa-gah-sah-pi, or Whip; Gish-tah-wah-gu, or Strong Walker; Mitchell P. Cera, or Wash-kommoni; A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, or Lone Chief; Shukah-bi, or Heavy Clouds; Tah-tungah-nushi, or Standing Buffalo.

Treaty with the Seneca–Tonawanda Band

Treaty with the Yankton Sioux

November 5, 1857

The main concerns of the treaty were relinquishment of lands; boundaries of ceded land; islands in the Missouri River; the building of roads; settlement of the tribe in one year; protection; the payment of annuities; the purchase of stock; the building of schools, mills, mechanic shops, and houses; and the maintenance of military posts and the like. A portion of the annuities were allowed to be paid for debts. Land grants were given to Charles F. Picotte, Zephyr Rencontre, Paul Dorian, and others. No trade was allowed unless licensed. The Yankton were to preserve peace and to surrender offenders. Annuities were not subject to individual debt and were to be withheld for intemperance. The Yankton were to be given an Indian agent. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and by sixteen chiefs and delegates of the Yankton tribe of Sioux or Dakota.

April 19, 1858

This treaty concerns former treaties with the Six Nations of New York on January 15, 1838, and with the Seneca Nation on May 20, 1842. Certain claims under former treaties were relinquished, and unimproved lands were surrendered. Payment was determined, and the Tonawanda were told they could purchase reservation land, that the deed was to be held in trust by the secretary of the interior, and that they were allowed to appoint attorneys. Part of the purchase money was to be invested in stocks. Improvement money was to be apportioned. Concluded on the Tonawanda Reservation in the county of Genesee, New York, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and by Jabez Ground, Jesse Spring, Isaac Shanks, George Sky, and Ely S. Parker, delegates to the Tonawanda band of Seneca, and by forty-five chiefs and headmen of the said tribes.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

350

Treaty with the Sioux – June 19, 1858

Treaty with the Sioux

Treaty with the Winnebago

June 19, 1858

April 15, 1859

This treaty was between the United States and the Mendawakanton and Wahpahoota bands of the Dakota or Sioux tribe. Its main point was that eighty acres of reservation land were to be allotted to each head of a family, and the residue was to be held in common. Further survey and allotments were made. Some lands were made exempt from taxes. Additional concerns were provisions and amendments of the treaty of August 5, 1851. Bands were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from engaging in hostilities except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. The secretary of the interior was to have discretion over the manner and object of annual expenditures, and the Senate was to decide whether $10,000 was to be paid to A. J. Campbell, son of then-deceased Scott Campbell. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and by seventeen chiefs and headmen of the Mendawakanton and Wahpahoota bands.

Under the terms of this treaty, the eastern portion of the reservation, to be known as the Winnebago Reservation, was to be set apart and assigned in severalty to members of the tribe. Whites were not to reside on the reserve. The division of lands was to be under the direction of the secretary of the interior, with certificates issued to the commissioner of Indian affairs. Certain lands could be sold as dictated, and the debts of the tribe were to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. Provisions were made in case the proceeds were insufficient to pay debts. All members of the tribe were to be notified of this agreement, and the expenses were to be paid from tribal funds. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and by twelve chiefs and delegates representing the Winnebago tribe.

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. July 16, 1859

Treaty with the Sioux June 19, 1858 This treaty was between the United States and the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux tribe. Its main point was that eighty acres of reservation land were to be allotted to each head of a family, and the residue was to be held in common. Further survey and allotments were made. Some lands were made exempt from taxes. Additional concerns were provisions and amendments of the treaty of July 23, 1851. The United States was to maintain military posts, roads, and the like. Bands were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from engaging in hostilities except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank liquor. Members of the bands were allowed to dissolve tribal connections. The secretary of the interior was to have discretion over the manner and object of annual expenditures. Rights of the tribes and allowances were determined. Settlers who settled in good faith on reservation land would have the right of preemption. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States and by eight chiefs and headmen of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands.

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty was between the United States and the Swan Creek and Black River Chippewa and the Munsee or Christian tribe. Its intent was to manifest tribal liberality, to encourage agricultural pursuits, and to remove all erroneous impressions respecting the nonfulfillment of stipulations of former treaties. Provisions were made for the sale of the reservation held by the Christian tribe and for a suitable and permanent home as directed by Congress on June 8, 1858. Whites were not permitted to settle on the reserve. Appropriations were made for stock, agricultural implements, a schoolhouse, a church building, a blacksmith shop, and the like. The tribes relinquished all claims and granted rights-of-way for roads and highways. Concluded at the Sac and Fox agency, the treaty was signed by Commissioner David Crawford for the United States and by eight delegates representing the tribes.

Treaty with the Sac and Fox October 1, 1859 This treaty was between the United States and the Sac and Fox of the Mississippi. Under its terms, part of the present reservation was to be set apart and boundaries defined; the new reserve would be

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne – February 18, 1861

known as the reservation of the Sac and Fox of the Mississippi. Eighty acres were set apart for each member of the tribe, along with a tract of land to support a school. Whites were not to reside on the land without permission. All members of the tribe were to share in the benefits. Certificates were to be issued to the commissioner of Indian affairs for division of lands. Rights-of-way for roads, highways, and railroads were allowed. Certain lands could be sold as dictated, and the debts of the tribe were to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. Provisions were made in case the proceeds were insufficient to pay debts. Provisions of former treaties could be changed by Congress. Provisions were made for Thomas Connelly. Concluded at the Sac and Fox agency in the Territory of Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Alfred B. Greenwood for the United States and by nine chiefs and delegates representing the tribes.

Treaty with the Kansa Tribe October 5, 1859

351

Sarcoxieville on the Delaware Reservation, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Thomas B. Sykes for the United States and by John Conner, Sar-cox-ie, Ne-con-he-con, Rock-a-to-wha, and James Conner, chiefs of the Delaware tribe.

Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne February 18, 1861 This treaty covered the cession to the United States of lands not owned by the Arapaho and Cheyenne and set boundaries, locations, and stipulations. The treaty also stipulated the disposition of lands, the name of the reservation, and the protection of persons and property. Concluded at Fort Wise, the treaty was signed by Commissioners Albert G. Boone and F. B. Culver for the United States and by the following chiefs and delegates representing the confederated tribes of Arapahoe and Cheyenne Indians of the Upper Arkansas River: Little Raven, Storm, Shave-Head, and Big-Mouth (on the part of

The main concerns of the treaty were assignment of portions of the reservation, boundaries, certificates to be issued, rules and regulations, schools and agency, and naming the Kansas Reservation. Certain assignments were given to the children of Julia Pappan and others. Whites were not allowed to reside on the reserve. Certain lands were allowed to be sold, and the debts of the tribe were to be paid out of the proceeds from the sale. Provisions were made in case the proceeds were insufficient to pay debts. Provisions of treaties could be changed by the president with assent of Congress. The right-of-way for roads was given. Concluded at the Kansas agency in the Territory of Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Alfred B. Greenwood for the United States and by twenty-seven chiefs and headmen representing the Kansa tribe.

Treaty with the Delaware May 30, 1860 This treaty dealt with the distribution and allocation of land and allowed eighty acres per tribe member. The treaty stipulated what was to be done in the case of abandonment of land and also set the price per acre at $1.25; it also specified what the United States was to pay for certain depredations. Concluded at

www.abc-clio.com

Cheyennes and Kiowas—Southern Plains Delegation in the White House Conservatory on March 27, 1863. The white woman standing at the far right, top row, is often identified as Mary Todd Lincoln. The Indians in the front row are, left to right: War Bonnet, Standing in the Water, Lean Bear of the Cheyennes, and Yellow Wolf of the Kiowas. Lean Bear was a key representative in the 1861 treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne. Yellow Wolf is wearing the Thomas Jefferson peace medal. The identities of the Indians in the second row are unknown. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

352

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. – March 6, 1861

the Arapaho), and Black Kettle, White Antelope, Lean Bear, Little Wolf, and Left Hand, or Namos.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. March 6, 1861 This treaty was between the United States and the Sac and Fox of Missouri and the Iowa. The treaty called for the cession of the reservation in Missouri to the United States and also set boundaries and improvements. Further, it stated that the Iowa must cede land to the United States for the use of the Sac and Fox and that Joseph Tesson and certain chiefs would be allowed to select certain quarter sections of land. It also arranged a grant for education, stipulated that no persons could abide on the reservation without a permit, and stated that a toll bridge was to be built over the Great Nemaha River. The treaty was signed by Daniel Vanderslice, Indian agent, for the United States; by Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, Ne-sour-quoit, Moless, and Se-se-ah-kee, delegates of the Sac and Fox of Missouri; and by No-heart, Nag-ga-rash, Mah-hee, To-hee, Tah-ra-kee, Thur-o-mony, and White Horse, delegates of the Iowa tribe.

ments to be made. The treaty authorized the president to cause lands to be granted in fee to certain male adults, allowed for the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Railroad to purchase certain land, and set the price and terms of purchase. It also allowed for a reservation of land for the Baptist Mission, for annual interest of the improvement fund, and for former claims to hold good. The treaty was signed by Commissioner William W. Ross for the United States and by seventy-five chiefs, braves, and headmen of the Potawatomi Nation.

Treaty with the Kansa March 13, 1862 This treaty is an amendment to a treaty made in 1859. It authorized the secretary of the interior to ascertain the value of the improvements made by persons who settled on the diminished reserve of the Kansa, and it granted a half-section of land to Thomas S. Huffaker. Concluded in the state of Kansas at the Kansas Indian agency, the treaty was signed by Commissioners Alfred B. Greenwood and H. W. Farnsworth for the United States and by twenty-seven representatives of the Kansa tribe.

Treaty with the Delaware July 2, 1861 This treaty set forth certain lands pledged by the railroad company to secure its bonds. It included a list of lands, set forth the authority of the agent of the road to make conveyance, and stipulated the form of bond. It also stated that the company was entitled to patent and to execute bonds and mortgage. Concluded at Leavenworth City, Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioner William P. Dole for the United States and by head chief John Conner and four other representatives of the Delaware tribe.

Treaty with the Potawatomi November 15, 1861 This treaty dealt with the disposition of the Kansas Reservation and arranged for a census of the tribe; it also set forth assignments of land, certificates to issue, exemption from levy, and pay-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf June 24, 1862 This treaty allowed certain Ottawa Indians to become citizens of the United States within five years of the treaty date. It also sectioned land to compensate chiefs, stated that heads of families would receive either 160 or 80 acres of land, set forth annuities and debts, and set apart land for a school. The treaty also stated there would be no tax, and it also specified how the school land was to be managed and what was to be taught in the school. The treaty was signed by Commissioner William P. Dole for the United States; by Pem-ach-wung, chief; and by John T. Jones, William Hurr, and James Wind, chief and councilmen of the Ottawa Indians of the united bands of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone – July 2, 1863

353

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands March 11, 1863 This treaty arranged for the cession of certain reservations to the United States and set the boundaries and annuities thereof. It allowed for the reservation to be cleared in lots and gave houses to the chiefs, and the United States agreed to furnish oxen and tools. It also stated who was to be recognized as chief, who was to receive said annuities, and set the salary of female teachers. Concluded in Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed for the United States by William P. Dole, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Clark W. Thompson, superintendent of Indian affairs of the Northern Superintendency; and by Henry M. Rice of Minnesota for and on behalf of the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish bands of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota.

Treaty with the Nez Percé June 9, 1863 This treaty arranged for the cession of lands to the United States and set the reservation boundaries. It also required the tribe to settle on the reservation within a year, allowed portions of land to be sold to loyal whites, allowed for certificates of sale, and specified that the lots were to be exempt from levy, taxes, and the like. The treaty also asked the tribe to elect subordinate chiefs, gave the tribe money for two churches, schools, a hospital, blacksmith’s tools, houses, mills, and so forth. The treaty was signed for the United States by C. H. Hale, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Charles Hutchins and S. D. Howe, U.S. Indian agents for the Territory of Washington; and for the Indians by fifty chiefs of the Nez Percé Nation.

Chief Joseph (c. 1840–1904) was a courageous leader of considerable diplomatic skill who came to be regarded as the spokesman for the united bands of Nez Percé. His legend was sealed by his famous declaration upon surrendering in 1877 that “from where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.” (Library of Congress)

to hold their lands in common, and stipulated that the Atchison and Pike’s Peak Railroad could purchase certain lands. Concluded at the Indian agency on the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles B. Keith for the United States and by eight chiefs of the Kickapoo Nation.

Treaty with the Kickapoo June 28, 1863 This treaty dealt with the division of land, arranged for an accurate census of the reservation to be taken, and set for the conditions of land sale. It allowed heads of families to be allottees and to become citizens of the United States, stated when contracts were to be null, provided for those members who wished

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone July 2, 1863 This treaty reestablished friendly relations and perpetual peace between the United States and the Eastern Shoshone. Further, the treat set forth routes of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

354

Treaty with the Shoshone–Northwestern Bands – July 30, 1863

travel, settlements and posts, and telegraph and stage lines, permitted the railway to come through the land, set the boundaries of the Shoshone land, and provided an annuity for loss of game. Concluded at Fort Bridger, Utah Territory, the treaty was signed by James Duane Doty and Luther Mann, Jr., for the United States and by eleven chiefs of the Shoshone Nation.

tions. This treaty also stipulated how claims were to be audited, allowed for a road to be built from Leach Lake to Red Lake, and prohibited spirituous liquors. It also granted 160 acres to certain members of the Red Lake and Pembina bands as well as a reservation of 640 acres each for Chiefs Moose Dung and Red Bear. The treaty was signed by Alexander Ramsey and Ashley C. Morrill for the United States and by fifteen chiefs and leaders of the Chippewa Nation.

Treaty with the Shoshone–Northwestern Bands July 30, 1863 This was a treaty of peace and friendship, stating that the Shoshone Nation understood and agreed with the Treaty of Fort Bridger (Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone–July 2, 1863); it also increased annuities and set the boundaries of the Shoshone country. Concluded at Box Elder, Utah Territory, the treaty was signed by Brigadier General P. Edward Connor, commanding the military district of Utah, and James Duane Doty for the United States, and by nine chiefs of the Shoshone Nation.

Treaty with the Western Shoshone October 1, 1863 This treaty established peace and asked the Western bands of Shoshone to cease depredations. It also set forth routes of travel, settlements and posts, and telegraph and stage lines, permitted the railway to come through the land, and set the boundaries of the Shoshone land, as well as allowing for explorations, mines, and use of timber. The treaty was signed by James W. Nye and James Duane Doty for the United States and by twelve leaders of the Shoshone Nation.

Treaty with Utah– Tabeguache Band October 7, 1863 This treaty set forth the boundaries of land, admitted the authority of the United States, asked for the cession of lands, and permitted military posts to be established on unceded lands. It permitted the mining of lands and their settlement by the Mohuache band of Utah with no molestation, and arranged protection for certain persons, redress of injuries, and delivery of offenders. The treaty also stipulated that stolen property would go to a government agent, that no munitions of war were to be given to bands not in amity with the United States, and that the band would receive five American stallions to improve their breeding of horses. Concluded at the Tabeguache agency at Conejos, Colorado Territory, the treaty was signed by J. Evans, M. Steck, Simeon Whiteley, and Lafayette Head for the United States and by ten leaders of the Tabeguache band.

Treaty with the Shoshone-Goship October 12, 1863

Treaty with the Chippewa–Red Lake and Pembina Bands October 1, 1863 This treaty established perpetual peace between the United States and the Red Lake and Pembina bands and requested the cession of land to the United States. It also set boundaries, set payments for lands ceded, granted amnesty for past offenses, and appropriated compensation for former depreda-

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty established peace and requested the Shoshone-Goship band to cease depredations. It established routes of travel, settlements and posts, and telegraph and stage lines, granted right-of-way for the railway, set the boundaries of the ShoshoneGoship land, and allowed for explorations, mines, and use of timber. Concluded at Tuilla Valley, Utah Territory, the treaty was signed by P. Edw. Connor and James Duane Doty for the United States and by four leaders of the Shoshone-Goship band.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Omaha – March 6, 1865

Treaty with the Chippewa–Red Lake and Pembina Bands April 12, 1864 This treaty stated the bands’ assent to the amendment of the treaty of October 2, 1863, and that the U.S. government would pay each band a sum in lieu of annuity by the former treaty. The treaty also set forth the annual expenditures of the U.S. government for blankets, provisions, and the like, and stipulated that the United States would furnish one blacksmith, one physician, one miller, and one farmer, as well as iron, steel, and a sawmill. Concluded at Old Crossing of Red Lake River in the state of Minnesota, the treaty was signed by Clark W. Thompson and Ashley C. Morrill for the United States and by sixteen leaders of the Red Lake and Pembina bands.

355

for the building of mills, shops, a schoolhouse, and a hospital; and arranged the provision of tools, books, stationery, farmers, mechanics, and teachers. This treaty stated that the reservation could be surveyed, was not to be alienated or subject to levy, and that restrictions could be removed. It also established peace and friendship, stipulated that tribe members who drank liquor would not benefit from the treaty, and permitted other tribes to be located on the reservation. The treaty was signed by J. W. Perit Huntington, superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon, and William Logan for the United States and by twentysix leaders of the Klamath.

Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River October 18, 1864

Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pillager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands May 7, 1864 This treaty called for the cession of various lakes and other reservations to the United States; it also set boundaries, specified reservations, set payments, and allowed for houses for the chiefs. The treaty also stated that the United States would furnish oxen, plows, agricultural implements, carpenters, blacksmiths, laborers, and physicians, and that a sawmill, roads, and bridges were to be erected for common use by the bands. Chiefs with bands of fewer than fifty were not to be recognized; gratuities were stated and salaries set for female teachers. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by William P. Dole, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Clark W. Thompson for the United States, and by the Chippewa chief Hole-in-the-Day and Mis-qua-dace.

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.

This treaty requested certain lands to be released to the United States and specified the amount of land each type of person (chiefs, headmen, etc.) was to receive. The treaty permitted William Smith and others to select lands and receive patents therefore; it further required the agent to make a list of lands selected and by whom, and to separate that list into “competents” and “those not so competent.” The treaty provided for a manual labor school, a farm, buildings, an annual appropriation, and control of the school and farm, stipulating also that, if the school and farm were abandoned, the rights under the treaty would be lost; that the land and buildings could be sold; and that the missionary society was to use the schoolhouse already present. It also said that the mill and land at Isabella City could be sold, that James Nicholson could select eighty acres, and that the eighth article of the former treaty was not affected. Concluded at the Isabella Indian Reservation in the state of Michigan, the treaty was signed by H. J. Alvord and D. C. Leach for the United States and by thirty leaders of the Chippewa bands.

October 14, 1864 This treaty required the Klamath to move to and live on the reservation, called for cession of lands to the United States, set boundaries, and stated that white persons were not to remain on the reservation. The treaty also called for a right-of-way for railroads; set payments to be made by the United States, along with additional payments and their use; provided

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Omaha March 6, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were cession, boundaries, provisions, payments, and division of land among tribe members, with certificates to be issued for tracts assigned. Articles of a treaty of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

356

Treaty with the Winnebago – March 8, 1865

March 16, 1854, were extended. Payment was to be made for damages to the reservation for use and destruction of timber by the Winnebago tribe. The name of the reserve was to be Omaha, and whites were not allowed to enter or reside on the reserve without permission. If the location of the Winnebago affected their peace, the Omaha could repurchase the land. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Commissioners Clark W. Thompson and Robert W. Furnas for the United States and by the Omaha tribe chiefs E-sta-mah-za (Joseph La Flesche), Gra-ta-mah-zhe (Standing Hawk), Ga-he-ga-zhinga (Little Chief), Tah-wah-gah-ha (Village Maker), Wahno-ke-ga (Noise), Sha-da-na-ge (Yellow Smoke), Wastch-com-ma-nu (Hard Walker), Pad-a-ga-he (Fire Chief), Ta-su (White Cow), and Ma-ha-nin-ga (No Knife).

Treaty with the Winnebago March 8, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were cession, reservation, boundaries, and expense of removal. The United States was to erect mills, to section and fence land, and furnish seed, tools, and the like. The United States further agreed to build an agency building, a schoolhouse, a warehouse, and buildings suitable for the physician, interpreter, miller, engineer, carpenter, and blacksmith, and a house for each chief. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Commissioners William P. Dole, C. W. Thompson, and A. D. Balcombe and by the Winnebago chiefs Little Hill, Little Decoria, Whirling Thunder, Young Prophet, Good Thunder, and White Breast.

Treaty with the Ponca

Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), Gist-tah-wah-gu (Strong Walker), Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P. Cerre), Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), and Tahton-ga-nuz-zhe (Standing Buffalo), delegates of the Ponca tribe.

Treaty with the Snake

March 10, 1865 This was a supplementary article to the treaty of March 12, 1858, and its main concerns were cession, boundaries, and land ceded back to the Ponca by the United States. The tribe was to satisfy or pay the claims, if any, of any settlers for improvements on the lands ceded by the United States; further, the United States was to indemnify the tribe for spoliation committed against them. Concluded in the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner William P. Dole for the United States and by

www.abc-clio.com

White Eagle, chief of the Ponca tribe, c. 1860. (Getty Images)

August 12, 1865 The main concerns of the treaty were peace, the release of slaves, prohibition of the sale of firearms, establishment of a justice system, land cession, boundaries, and reservation. The United States agreed to pay for fencing, breakup, and cultivation of land and to supply seed, tools, and stock. Further, the tribe was given a physician, mechanics, farmers, teachers, and an interpreter and had the use of the mills and schoolhouses. The tribe wanted to prevent

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho – October 14, 1865

the use of liquor among themselves by the withholding of annuities in the case of disobedience. Concluded at Sprague River Valley, the treaty was signed by J. W. Perit Huntington, superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon, for the United States and by eleven chiefs and headmen of the Woll-pah-pe band of the Snake tribe.

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory September 13, 1865 This agreement was never ratified. Its main concerns were to place the tribes under the protection and jurisdiction of the United States. In return, the United States promised to reestablish peace and friendship and to provide protection, and declared its willingness to enter into treaties to settle all questions resulting from former treaties. The agreement was signed most probably at Fort Smith by five commissioners for the United States and by numerous chiefs and delegates of the Creek, Cowskin Seneca, Seneca and Shawnee, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes.

Treaty with the Osage September 29, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were land sales, surveys, boundaries, payments in monies and goods, cession, funds in trust, individual land grants, annual salary for chiefs, land grant for purposes of education, and patents. Further, tribes were to be peaceful, to commit no depredations, and to refrain from making war. A right-of-way for highways and railroads was granted. The Osage were allowed to unite with other tribes and to receive a portion of annuities. If tribes removed from Kansas, their diminished reservation was to be sold and 50 percent of the proceeds used by the United States to purchase lands suitable for homes for the tribe. Concluded at the Canville trading post, Osage Nation, Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioner D. N. Cooley and Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and by eight chiefs of the Great and Little Osage tribes.

www.abc-clio.com

357

Treaty with the Sioux–Miniconjou Band October 10, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were submission to the laws of the United States, peace, settlement of differences between tribes by arbitration, tribal withdrawal from overland routes, payments, and protection of the tribal members. Subsequent amendment to the treaty was to be binding. Concluded at Fort Sully in the Territory of Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; and four commissioners; and for the Indians by fourteen chiefs and headmen of the Miniconjou band of the Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Sioux–Lower Brulé Band October 14, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were peace, arbitration, withdrawal of the tribes from overland routes, payments, building of roads, and establishment of schools. The United States was to engage a blacksmith and a farmer for the tribe’s benefit, but all stock, agricultural equipment, and other implements were to remain U.S. property. The reservation boundaries were laid out, and the reserve was to be known as the Lower Brulé. Whites were not to enter or reside on the reserve, and individual tribesmen locating on lands were to be protected. Two Kettle bands could be located adjoining the Brulé. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed by Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; and four commissioners, for the United States; and by fifteen chiefs and headmen of the Lower Brulé band of Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho October 14, 1865 The main concerns of the treaty were peace, arbitration, surrender of tribal members committing

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

358

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho – October 17, 1865

depredations, reservation, boundaries, payments and annuities, patents, land grants, and building of roads and military posts. Whites were not allowed to settle on the reserve, except for officers, agents, and employees of the government, and the tribes were not required to settle thereon until the United States extinguished all claims of title from other tribes. However, the tribes were not to encamp within ten miles of any main road and were to refrain from depredations. A census was to be taken each year, and these tribes were to urge other portions of the tribe not then present to join in this treaty. Concluded at the camp on the Little Arkansas River in Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioners John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele for the United States and by six Cheyenne and seven Arapaho chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho October 17, 1865 This treaty unites the Apache tribe, heretofore confederated with the Kiowa and Comanche tribes, with the Cheyenne and Arapaho bound under the provisions of the treaty of October 14, 1865, at the council grounds on the Little Arkansas River, Kansas. It was signed by Commissioners John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele for the United States and by six Apache, six Cheyenne, and seven Arapaho chiefs and headmen.

relinquished, and other portions of the tribes were urged to join in this treaty. The treaty was signed by Commissioners John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele for the United States, and by twenty-two chiefs and headmen of several bands of the Comanche and Kiowa tribes.

Treaty with the Sioux– Two-Kettle Band October 19, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural developments and implements. The United States was to engage a farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers. The United States was to make payment and receive indemnity for killing Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha (Puffing Eyes), a friendly chief of the Two-Kettle band of Dakota or Sioux. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully in Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley, Henry W. Reed, and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Natives by twentytwo chiefs and headmen of the Two-Kettles band of Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux October 19, 1865

Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa October 18, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were peace, arbitration, refrainment from depredations, surrender of tribal members committing crimes, reservation, boundaries, rights-of-way for roads and military posts, and payment of annuities. No whites were to settle on the reserve without permission. The tribe was to remove thereto and not leave without written permission; when absent from the reservation, tribe members were not to encamp within ten miles of any road or military post. Claims to other lands were

www.abc-clio.com

The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, and payments. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis, Brigadier General H. H. Sibley, Henry W. Reed, and Orrin Guernsey, and by two chiefs, Wah-hahchunk-i-ah-pee (The One That Is Used as a Shield)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux–Yanktonai Band – October 20, 1865

359

and Wah-mun-dee-wak-kon-o (The War Eagle in the Air), and twelve braves of the Blackfeet band of Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Sioux– Sans Arcs Band October 20, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural development and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Indians by the three chiefs Wah-mun-dee-o-peedoo-tah (The War Eagle with the Red Tail), Cha-tau’hne (Yellow Hawk), and Shon-kah-we-to-ko (The Fool Dog) and six chief soldiers of the Sans Arcs band of Dakota or Sioux. A Hunkapapa Sioux leader, Gall (c. 1840–1894) came into prominence at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, where he opened the fight by leading warriors against the charge of Major Marcus Reno’s battalion down the valley of the Little Bighorn. (National Archives)

Treaty with the Sioux–Hunkpapa Band October 20, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural development and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Indians by six chiefs and four chief soldiers of the Onkpahpah band of Dakota or Sioux.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sioux–Yanktonai Band October 20, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural development and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency;

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

360

Treaty with the Sioux–Upper Yanktonai Band – October 28, 1865

Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Indians by eight chiefs and seven chief soldiers of the Yanktonai band of Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Sioux– Upper Yanktonai Band October 28, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural development and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Indians by three chiefs and eleven chief soldiers of the Upper Yanktonai band of Dakota or Sioux Indians.

Treaty with the Sioux– Oglala Band October 28, 1865 The main concerns of this treaty were the authority and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitration, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, and payments for agricultural development and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey, and for the Indians by Chief Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka) and three headmen of the Oglala band of Dakota or Sioux.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes November 15, 1865 This is an amendment to the treaty of June 25, 1855. Certain rights granted by the former treaty were relinquished; the tribes were to remain on the reservation unless given a written permit to go outside the boundaries; and an allotment of land was to be given to each head of the family. The United States was to pay for teams, agricultural implements, seeds, and the like. Annuities would be withheld from tribal members who broke the treaty, and tribe members would be punished for using or possessing liquor. Concluded at the Warm Springs agency, Oregon, the treaty was signed by J. W. Perit Huntington, superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon, for the United States and by twenty-one chiefs and headmen of the confederated tribes and bands of Middle Oregon.

Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole April 28–July 19, 1866 These agreements were signed with the Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee Nations between February and August 1866. All five Indian groups had signed treaties of alliance with the Confederacy in 1861; as a result, the federal government declared that the tribes had lost all rights to annuities and land promised in former treaties. The negotiations with the five nations began in September 1865 with a twelve-day meeting at Fort Smith, Arkansas. During the conference, the federal government stated the seven basic stipulations required in each treaty. First, each nation had to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States, with other Indian nations, and between tribal factions. Second, they were to assist the federal government in pacifying the western Indians. Third, slavery had to be abolished, all slaves were to be unconditionally emancipated, and the freed slaves had to be incorporated into the tribes or other suitable provisions made for former slaves. Fourth, involuntary servitude could be tolerated only as punishment for a crime. Fifth, each nation holding land in Indian Territory had to set aside land for the settlement of Kansas Indians. Sixth, all tribes of Indian Territory were expected

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole – 1866

to prepare for the eventual consolidation of all Indians under one government. Finally, no white persons, except those connected with the military or assigned as Indian agents and employees of the government and of internal improvement agencies, were to be permitted to reside in Indian Territory unless they had been formally incorporated into the tribe. The Indians would have some ability to negotiate how much land each nation forfeited, the size of rights-of-way for railroads, and the status of former slaves. The Seminole delegation was the first to arrive in Washington. The inexperienced and impoverished representatives were war weary and just wanted to go home; consequently, they put up little resistance to the demands of federal negotiators. They agreed to all the demands of the Fort Smith meeting, ceding their entire homeland for fifteen cents an acre, and they agreed to purchase two hundred thousand acres from the Creek Nation at fifty cents an acre. Their treaty established rights-of-way for railroads, abolished slavery, and stated that all Seminoles, freedmen, and adopted white people would have equal rights within the nation. The harsh treaty with the Seminole was followed a few weeks later by a far more benevolent treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. The two nations hired an attorney and worked closely together. Overall, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and their attorneys proved to be very able negotiators, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw did not incur any liability or forfeiture of land as a result of their alignment with the Confederacy. They were not forced to grant citizenship to their former slaves. If the two nations did not pass legislation providing for the civil rights of their former slaves, the United States would use $300,000 of Choctaw and Chickasaw money to relocate the people of African descent elsewhere. Rights-of-way were established for railroads, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw made provisions to purchase stock in the company that built through their nation. The Indians were to pay for the stock by selling to the railroad sections of land six miles wide on each side of the track. The Creek Nation’s negotiations in many ways mirrored the Seminole negotiations. The delegates did not resist federal demands, and they accepted all the Fort Smith demands. They ceded the west half of the Creek domain, estimated to contain 3,250,560 acres; they adopted their freedmen, established rights-of-way for the railroads, and accepted provi-

www.abc-clio.com

361

sions for the eventual consolidation of all Indians under one government. The most contentious negations were with the Cherokee, who sent both Southern and Union representatives; federal officials played the two factions against each other. After months of bitter debate, federal negotiators dismissed the Loyal Cherokee delegation and concluded a treaty with the minority Southern representatives. This treaty was never recognized, and a few weeks later, the Loyal delegation was invited back. In the end, the Cherokee agreed to most of the Fort Smith provisions. Former slaves were granted citizenship and were to have equal rights with other Cherokee citizens. The nation was also forced to sell the Neutral Lands, but they refused to sell the Cherokee Strip. Fortunately, on the issue of land cession, the Loyal faction negotiated better terms than the other four nations did. The land was to be appraised by two disinterested parties and then to be sold to the highest bidder, and he Cherokee Nation was guaranteed at least $1.25 per acre. The unique sovereign status of the five nations allowed Indian commissioners to make demands of the slave-owning Indians that were not made of former Confederate states. No former Confederate state was required to give up territory as war reparations, yet all five nations were required to cede or lease land so the federal government could concentrate all unwanted indigenous people in Indian Territory. Furthermore, although Southern slaveowners simply had to free their slaves, the Indians were required to give their freedmen land and, in some cases, tribal membership and a share of tribal funds. In effect, three nations lost the right to determine their own tribal membership. In the end, once the negotiations were over, the Indians knew that they were the real losers of the Civil War. Joyce Ann Kievit References and Further Reading Abel, Annie Heloise. 1925. The American Indian under Reconstruction. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark. Reprint, St. Clair Shores, MI: Scholarly Press, 1972. Foreman, Grant. 1934. The Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Foreman, Grant. 1932. Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1971. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2. New York: AMS Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

362

Treaty with the Seminole – March 21, 1866

Treaty with the Seminole March 21, 1866 The main concerns of this treaty were peace, military occupation and protection, amnesty, prohibition of slavery, rights of those of African descent, cession of lands, boundaries, land grants, payments by the United States, rights-of-way for railroads, and construction of agency buildings. A council was organized and pay determined. No session of the council was allowed to exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special session could be called by the superintendent or the secretary of the interior. This treaty constituted full settlement of all claims; obligations from the treaty of August 1, 1861, were reaffirmed, and it was determined that any treaty provisions inconsistent with the articles of the current treaty would be annulled. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Commissioner D. N. Cooley, Superintendent of Indian Affairs Elijah Sells, and Ely S. Parker for the United States and by the Seminole chiefs John Chup-co (Long John), Cho-coteharjo, Fos-har-jo, and John F. Brown.

Treaty with the Potawatomi March 29, 1866 Amendments were desired by the Potawatomi Indians to their treaty concluded at the Potawatomi agency on November 15, 1861. Provisions of the third article of the former treaty were extended to all adult persons of the tribe. This treaty was signed by Commissioner Dennis N. Cooley and a business committee acting on behalf of said tribe.

Treaty with the Chippewa– Bois Fort Band

Cooley and Special Commissioner E. E. L. Taylor for the United States and by nine chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Bois Fort band of Chippewa.

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw April 28, 1866 The main concerns of this treaty were peace, cessation of slavery and involuntary servitude, cession, rights of blacks and freedmen, amnesty for past offenses, rights-of-way for railroads, laws governing companies, patents, payments, investments, land grants, mode of land selection, rights of citizens by adoption or intermarriage, and the survey and division of lands with maps to exhibit actual occupancies. A justice system was organized, and the building of military posts and Indian agencies was allowed. Post offices and a postal service were to be established. A council was organized and pay determined. No session of the council was allowed to exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special session could be called by the superintendent or the secretary of the interior. Missionaries were not to be interfered with and were given certain rights. No more that ten thousand Kansas tribe members would be received into these districts, and no white persons were to enter the territory without special permission. Former rights and immunities of tribe members were to remain in force. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Special Commissioners Dennis N. Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E. S. Parker for the United States; by Alfred Wade, Allen Wright, James Riley, and John Page, commissioners, on the part of the Choctaw; and by Winchester Colbert, Edmund Pickens, Holmes Colbert, Colbert Carter, and Robert H. Love, commissioners, on the part of the Chickasaw.

April 7, 1866 The main concerns of this treaty were peace, cession, boundaries, reservation, payments, land grants, and annuities. The United States agreed to build a blacksmith shop, a schoolhouse, houses for the chiefs, and other buildings. Obligations from the treaty of September 30, 1854, were reaffirmed, and it was determined that any treaty provisions inconsistent with the articles of the current treaty would be abrogated. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs D. N.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Creeks June 14, 1866 This was a treaty of cession and indemnity, establishing military occupation and protection by the United States and amnesty. Slavery was prohibited, and the rights of people of African descent were outlined. Payment was to be made for the cession of lands and for losses of loyal refugee members and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Agreement at Fort Berthold – July 27, 1866

freedmen who had enlisted in the Federal army. Right-of-way was granted for a railroad. Land grants were made for missionary and educational purposes. The Seminole were allowed to sell or convey land to the United States, and the boundary dividing the Creek country was to be surveyed. Agency buildings were to be erected. A council was organized and powers and pay determined. No session of the council was allowed to exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special session could be called by the superintendent or the secretary of the interior. This treaty constituted full settlement of all claims and reaffirmed obligations from the treaty of July 10, 1861; further, any treaty provisions inconsistent with the articles of the current treaty would be annulled. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty was signed for the United States by Dennis N. Cooley, commissioner of Indian affairs; Elija Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern Superintendency; and Colonel Ely S. Parker, special commissioner; and by the Creek Nations of Indians, represented by Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), Cow-eto-me-co, and Che-chu-chee, delegates at large, and D. N. McIntosh and James Smith, special delegates of the Southern Creek.

Treaty with the Delaware July 4, 1866 The main concerns of this treaty were payment for reservation land previously sold, and authorization to sell the remaining part as well as to reserve for sale the lands of those members who elected to become citizens. Improvements were to be appraised and each member paid accordingly. Provisions were made to set apart land for allotment to children born after the treaty. The United States was to sell certain lands to the Delaware and to survey and define boundaries. Proceeds from the sales were to be paid to tribe members. Peaceable possession was guaranteed. Procedures for citizenship were defined, a registry was to be made of those electing to become citizens, and a patent was to be granted to those who became citizens. A settlement of all claims for depredations was made. The Delaware were not to move until new homes were provided. The treaty was signed by Superintendent Thomas Murphy, Indian Agent John G. Pratt, and Special Commissioner W. H. Watson for the United

www.abc-clio.com

363

States, and by three chiefs and four councilors of the Delaware tribe.

Treaty with the Cherokee July 19, 1866 Under the terms of this treaty, the treaty of October 7, 1861, was declared void, amnesty was given, confiscation laws were repealed, and rights were restored to former owners. Slavery was prohibited, although emancipated slaves were not to be paid. Cherokee, freed slaves, and free blacks could elect to reside in the Canadian district southwest of the Arkansas River, and a justice system was outlined. The United States guaranteed protection and was allowed to build military posts and to settle other civilized tribes in the Cherokee country. However, those wishing to preserve the tribal organization were allowed to have land set aside for them. The tribe was given the right of representation in the national council. No trade licenses were to be issued without the express permission of the Cherokee. The Cherokee were allowed to sell farm products. A council was organized and powers and pay determined. No session of the council was allowed to exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special session could be called by the superintendent or the secretary of the interior. Land grants were allowed for missionary and educational purposes. This treaty reaffirmed all previous treaties, and any treaty provisions inconsistent with the current treaty would be annulled. Concluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was signed by Dennis N. Cooley, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern Superintendency for the United States, and by six delegates of the Cherokee Nation. Principal chief John Ross of the Cherokee was too unwell to join in these negotiations.

Agreement at Fort Berthold July 27, 1866 The main concern of this treaty was peace with the white people and among the Arikara, Gros Ventres, and Mandan. A supplement to the treaty states that the Gros Ventre and Mandan tribes became parties to the treaty. Concluded at Fort Berthold in the Territory of Dakota, the treaty was signed for the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

364

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox – February 18, 1867

Arikara night medicine men, c. 1908. The Arikara participated in several treaty negotiations, including the Agreement at Fort Berthold July 27, 1866. (Library of Congress)

United States by Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian affairs, Major General S. R. Curtis, Orrin Guernsey, and Henry W. Reed; and by twenty-four chiefs and headmen of the Arikara tribe.

dent of Indian affairs for Kansas; and Henry W. Martin, U.S. Indian agent; and by Keokuk, Che-kus-kuk, Uc-quaw-ho-ko, Mut-tut-tah, and Man-ah-to-wah, chiefs of the tribes of Sac and Fox of the Mississippi.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox

Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands

February 18, 1867

February 19, 1867

This treaty dealt mainly with cession, reservation, survey, construction of buildings, land grants, patents, and payments. The United States was to establish a manual labor school, to build schools, and to supply a physician, medicine, tobacco, and salt. Claims against the tribe and claims against the United States were to be paid. Absent members of the tribe were to be notified of the treaty. The treaty was signed for the United States by Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs; William H. Watson, special commissioner; Thomas Murphy, superinten-

The main concerns of the treaty were peace; cession of rights to construct wagon roads, railroads, mail stations, and telegraph lines; boundaries; reservation; patents; and appropriations to enable the tribes to return to an agricultural life. Payments were to be made in monies, except for the erection of houses and articles to facilitate agriculture. No one was authorized to trade for furs or pelts within the reserve. Members of the bands were the only ones allowed to reside on the reserve without special permission. Chiefs and headmen were allowed to set up

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche – October 21, 1867

a judicial system under the direction of the agent. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Commissioner William H. Watson for the United States and by numerous chiefs and headmen of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux.

Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc. February 23, 1867 The main concerns of the treaty were cession by all the signatory tribes, payments, education and schools, aid in agriculture, investigation of claims, citizenship, and removal to permanent homes. The United States agreed to pay for a blacksmith and all necessary iron, steel, and tools in exchange for the tribes’ relinquishment of all claims of damage and loss during the late war. Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed for the United States by Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs; as W. H. Watson, special commissioner; Thomas Murphy, superintendent of Indian affairs; and George C. Snow and G. A. Colton, U.S. Indian agents. The treaty was signed for the Seneca by George Spicer and John Mush; for the Mixed Seneca and Shawnee by John Whitetree, John Young, and Lewis Davis; for the Quapaw by S. G. Vallier and Ka-zhe-cah; for the Confederated Peoria, Kaskaskia, Wea, and Piankeshaw by Baptiste Peoria, John Mitchell, and Edward Black; for the Miami by Thomas Metosenyah and Thomas Richardville; for the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf by John White and J. T. Jones; and for certain Wyandot by Tauromee (John Hat) and John Karaho.

The third article of the treaty of November 15, 1861, was reaffirmed, and amounts due the Potawatomi were to be ascertained. Land was set aside for schools. Certain persons were allowed to purchase unallotted lands. The treaty was signed at Washington, D.C. Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs; W. H. Watson, special commissioner; Thomas Murphy, superintendent of Indian affairs for Kansas; and Luther R. Palmer, Indian agent, signed for the United States. Eight chiefs, braves, and headmen signed for the Potawatomi tribe.

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi March 19, 1867 The main concerns of this treaty were cession, reservation, boundaries, survey, Hole-in-the-Day and his heirs, land for farming, payments for lands ceded, schools, mills, houses, stock, agriculture, land grants, and provisions. A physician was also to be supplied. Further, all tribe members having ten acres under cultivation were entitled to receive a certificate for forty acres. The land was made exempt from taxation and was not to be alienated. A justice system was established. The treaty was signed at Washington, D.C., by Special Commissioner Lewis V. Bogy, William H. Watson, and U.S. Agent Joel B. Bassett for the United States; and by the Chippewa of the Mississippi, represented by Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day), Qui-we-shenshish, Wau-bon-a-quot, Min-e-do-wob, Mijaw-keke-shik, Shob-osk-kunk, Ka-gway-dosh, Me-no-keshick, Way-namee, and O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush.

Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche October 21, 1867

Treaty with the Potawatomi February 27, 1867 The parties to this treaty agreed that a commission would select a reservation that would not be included in any state. The Prairie band had no interest in the reservation but would receive a share in the proceeds. A registry was to be made listing the tribe members who desired to remove and those who decided to remain. Money from the sale would be retained until the party was ready to remove to a new reservation.

www.abc-clio.com

365

The main concerns of this treaty were to stop the war, to ensure that no captives were taken, and to keep the peace. Offenders against the Indians were to be arrested, and wrongdoers against the whites were to be punished. Further concerns were permanent reservation, survey, boundaries, and restriction of residence to certain persons. Children were to attend school; the United States agreed to provide schoolhouses and teachers, seeds and agricultural implements, instructions in farming, and a blacksmith.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

366

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache – October 21, 1867

After ten years, the United States could withdraw the physician, farmer, blacksmiths, carpenter, engineer, and miller by paying an additional $10,000 per year to the tribe. The right to occupy territory outside the reservation was surrendered, but the right to hunt was reserved. The United States was allowed to build railroads, wagon roads, and military posts. No treaty for cession of reservation, which is held in common, was to be considered valid unless permitted by three-fourths of the male tribe members occupying the reserve. This treaty was signed at the Council Camp on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort Larned, Kansas, by Nathaniel G. Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred Terry, John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Henderson for the United States, and by the confederated tribes of the Kiowa and Comanche, represented by their chiefs and headmen.

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache October 21, 1867 Under this treaty, the Apache agreed to keep peace and to incorporate with the Kiowa and Comanche. The Apache were to observe the stipulations and to

participate in the same advantages and annuities of the former treaty. The treaty was signed at the Council Camp on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort Larned, Kansas, by Nathaniel G. Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred Terry, John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Henderson for the United States and by numerous chiefs and headmen of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribe.

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho October 28, 1867 The Treaty of Medicine Lodge was negotiated with the largest American Indian nations of the southern plains—the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache—in October 1867. This treaty represented the last effort of the United States to solve its conflict with these nations in a diplomatic way. Extensive European American intrusion into the central and southern plains had culminated during the Colorado gold rush of 1859; the resulting in uneasiness was expressed in reprisals on both sides during the 1860s. After the massacre of a whole Cheyenne village on Sand Creek in 1864 and the

Ten Bears led the Comanches on the way to the Great Treaty Council on Medicine Lodge Creek, Monday, October 16, 1867. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho – October 28, 1867

The Great Treaty Council on Medicine Lodge Creek in southern Kansas lasted several days, and involved the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache. (National Archives)

burning of another one at Pawnee Fork in 1867, Cheyenne war parties retaliated with raids. The treaty aimed not only at securing peace but also at confining the American Indians to reservations, where they would be assimilated. The treaty thus marked the beginning of the reservation period. Indian agent Colonel Jesse Leavenworth met with the pertinent Indian chiefs to negotiate a place for the signing of the treaty. The site of Medicine Lodge Creek in Southern Kansas, seventy miles west-southwest of Wichita, was chosen as a compromise, allowing easy transportation of gifts from Fort Larned. The Indian nations were hesitant to go farther north, where they risked attack or exposure to the outbreak of cholera along the Arkansas River. The members of the U.S. Peace Commission were Generals Alfred Terry, William Harney, John Sanborn, and Christopher Augur; Senator John B. Henderson; Commissioner N. G. Taylor; and Colonel Samuel Tappan. A number of newspaper correspondents were present. One of them, H. M. Stanley, reported that there were 150 lodges of the Kiowa, with their representatives Sitting Bear (Satank) and White Bear (Satanta); 100 lodges of the Comanche, with Ten Bears and Silver Brooch; 171 lodges of the Arapaho, with Little Raven and Yellow Bear; 85 lodges of the Kiowa-Apache, with Poor Bear; and 250 lodges of the peaceful fraction of the Cheyenne, with Black Kettle and Little Robe. The chiefs of the militant Cheyenne band Dog Soldiers, such as Tall Bull and Bull Bear, did not agree with the treaty at first. The Cheyenne came and signed only after they finished their ceremonies of Sacred Arrows Renewal, when Black Kettle persuaded them to do so.

www.abc-clio.com

367

The negotiations were conducted in three sessions; the result of each was a treaty between the Peace Commission and the Indian nations represented at each session. The Kiowa and Comanche signed on October 21, the Kiowa-Apache on the same day, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho on October 28, 1867. Because the terms of the treaties were nearly identical, and the three documents were a result of a single peace effort, the treaty is usually referred to as one single treaty. The peace agreement guaranteed the right of European Americans to travel over emigrant roads through the southern and central plains, the safety of the railroads and their construction, and cession of the American Indian land. The Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache were assigned a reservation in southwestern Indian Territory between the Red River and the Washita River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho were granted a reservation in northeastern Indian Territory between the Arkansas River and the Cimarron River. All these nations were expected to adopt the European American pattern of civilization on their reservations. The Medicine Lodge treaty provided for the compulsory education of children between ages six and sixteen, a resident Indian agent, a physician, a farmer, and other permanent agency personnel. Any head of a family could select 320 acres of land within the reservation for private farming, whereas single adults would receive eight acres. Compensating for previous treaty agreements, the U.S. government bound itself to deliver clothing and to provide funds for the benefit of the Indian nations for a period of thirty years. The treaty was successful in setting an example for a new period in the plains conflict, but it did not stop the frontier wars. Detainment of promised provisions, the activities of liquor peddlers, continuing intertribal warfare, and the impending breakdown of the buffalo economy—related to European American encroachment—created a dismal situation that led to more killing on both sides. Eventually, nearly two years after concluding the treaty, all the Indian nations settled down on their reservations. The treaty was a clear declaration of the further intentions of the United States. Up to this time, the Indian nations had been just pushed aside from the settlement areas of the European Americans and allowed to live in their own ways. Now they would be forced to assimilate.

ABC-CLIO

Antonie Dvorakova

1-800-368-6868

368

Treaty with the Ute – March 2, 1868

Treaty with the Ute March 2, 1868

Black Kettle (1803/07–1868), chief of the southern Cheyenne in Colorado, sought peace with the white men who encroached on Cheyenne land on the Great Plains in the mid-nineteenth century. Although he signed numerous treaties, more than half his people died in the Sand Creek Massacre in November 1864. Four years later, Black Kettle and hundreds of Native Americans died in an attack led by General George Custer on their village along the Washita River in western Oklahoma. (Oklahoma Historical Society) See also Assimilation; Black Kettle; Satanta; Sitting Bear (Setangya or Satank); Treaty. References and Further Reading Berthrong, Donald, J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Grinnell, George Bird. 1956. The Fighting Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles Joseph, ed. 1972. Indian Treaties, 1778–1883. New York: Interland.

www.abc-clio.com

This treaty reaffirmed all provisions of the October 17, 1863, treaty that were not inconsistent with this treaty. Its main concerns were reservation boundaries, release of claims to all other lands, appropriations, buildings, and education. The United States agreed to supply schools, teachers, seeds, agricultural implements, a farmer for instruction, a blacksmith, goods, and stock. A right-of-way was granted for railways and highways. Only authorized persons would be permitted to pass on, settle upon, or reside on the reserve, and two agencies were to be established on the reserve. Decisions regarding depredation were to be made by the commissioner of Indian affairs; tribes and whites alike were to be subject to the laws of the United States. Other concerns were the selection of lands for cultivation; the tracts of land were to be recorded in the Ute Land-Book. The president was authorized to order a survey of the reserve at any time, to protect improvements of the individual tribal members. The United States was allowed to pass laws concerning alienation and descent of property and government issues on the reservation. If the treaty was broken in any manner, the chief was to forfeit his position and all rights to any benefits of the treaty. Any individual tribe member who remained at peace and abided by the terms of the treaty would be entitled to benefits of the treaty. Concluded at Washington, D.C., this treaty was signed for the United States by Nathaniel G. Taylor, commissioner of Indian affairs; Alexander C. Hunt, governor of Colorado Territory and former superintendent of Indian affairs; and Kit Carson, Ten representatives of the Tabaguache, Muache, Capote, Weeminuche, Yampa, Grand River, and Uintah bands signed for the Utes.

Treaty with the Cherokee April 27, 1868 This was a supplemental article to a treaty concluded at the city of Washington on July 19, 1866. This was a contract signed by James Harlan, secretary of the interior, with the American Emigrant Company for the sale of “Cherokee neutral lands” in the Kansas, and a contract with James F. Joy of Detroit, Michigan, for the sale of aforesaid lands. A previous contract dated October 9, 1867, between

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho – May 10, 1868

Orville H. Browning for the United States and James F. Joy, Detroit, was cancelled. The modifications of the contract were listed and assigned to Joy.

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho April 29, 1868 Under the terms of this treaty, war was to cease, peace was to be kept, and offenders against the tribe or against whites were to be arrested and punished. Damages were to be decided by the commissioner of Indian affairs. Other concerns of the treaty were reservation boundaries, persons allowed to enter or reside thereon, land selection, additional land for farming, surveys, patents and citizenship, and certificates issued and recorded in the Sioux Land-Book. Additionally, right-of-way was granted for the building of roads, railroads, and military posts. The United States was to supply an agent’s residence and office, a schoolhouse, teachers, seeds, agricultural implements, farming instruction, a second blacksmith, a physician, and a farmer. Delivery of goods in lieu of money or other annuities was allowed. An annual census was to be taken each year, and appropriations were to continue for thirty years. An army officer was to attest to all delivery of goods. The reservation was to be a permanent home of the tribes, and no treaty for cession of reservation land would be valid unless threefourths of all adult males of the tribe agreed. The United States agreed that the country north of the North Platte River and east of the summits of the Bighorn Mountains would be unceded Indian territory and agreed that no white person or persons would be allowed to settle upon or occupy any portion of that land without permission of the tribes. This treaty released the United States from obligations made in previous treaties to furnish money, goods, or land. The treaty was signed by Commissioners William T. Sherman, William S. Harney, Alfred H. Terry, C. C. Augur, J. B. Henderson, Nathaniel G. Taylor, John B. Sanborn, and Samuel F. Tappan for the United States; by twenty-five chiefs and headmen of the Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, TwoKettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee bands of the Sioux Nation; and by twenty-six representatives of the Arapaho Nation.

www.abc-clio.com

369

Treaty with the Crow May 7, 1868 Under this treaty, peace was to be kept, offenders against the tribe or whites were to be arrested and punished, and rules for ascertaining damages were noted. Other concerns of the treaty were reservation boundaries, an agent to reside on the reserve (duties outlined), persons not allowed to reside thereon, land selection, surveys, certificates issued and recorded in the Crow Land-Book. Children aged six to sixteen were required to attend school. Further, the United States was to supply schoolhouses, teachers, seeds, agricultural implements, farming instruction, and a physician. Each family was to receive a cow and a pair of oxen. Delivery of goods in lieu of money or other annuities was allowed. An annual census was to be taken. An army officer was to attest to all delivery of goods. The reservation was to be a permanent home of the tribes, and no treaty for cession of reservation land would be valid unless a majority of all adult males of the tribe agreed. This treaty was concluded at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory, and signed for the United States by Commissioners W. T. Sherman, William S. Harney, Alfred H. Terry, C. C. Augur, John B. Sanborn., S. F. Tappan, and Ashton S. H. White, and by eleven chiefs and headmen representing the Crow.

Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho May 10, 1868 Under the terms of this treaty, peace was to be kept, offenders among the whites were to be arrested and punished, and tribal wrongdoers were to be given up to U.S. authorities. Damages were to be decided by the commissioner of Indian affairs. The main concerns of the treaty were reservation, surrender of territory outside the reservation area, retention of hunting rights, and selection of a reservation. The heads of families and persons over the age of eighteen who desired to commence farming were allowed to select lands. Certificates of selection were to be recorded in the Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho Land-Book. Children aged six to sixteen were required to attend school. Additionally, the United States was to supply schoolhouses, teachers, seeds, agricultural implements, farming instruction, and a physician. Each family was to receive a cow and a pair of oxen. An

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

370

Treaty with the Navajo – June 1, 1868

annual census was to be taken and appropriations made in money for ten years. An army officer was to attest to all delivery of all goods. The reservation was to be a permanent home of the tribes, and no treaty for cession of reservation land would be valid unless a majority of all adult males of the tribe agreed. This treaty was signed at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory, by Commissioners W. T. Sherman, William S. Harney, Alfred H. Terry, C. C. Augur, John B. Sanborn, and S. F. Tappan for the United States, and by thirteen chiefs and headmen of the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho tribes.

Treaty with the Navajo June 1, 1868 On June 1, 1868, after four years in an American internment camp, Navajo leaders, including Barboncito and Manuelito, signed what would be the last treaty with the United States. The treaty is a symbol of the Navajo Nation’s sovereign status, although, like other indigenous nations, it is still dependent upon the United States. Importantly, the treaty allowed the Diné (“the People”) to return to their beloved homeland after four years in an internment camp at Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Navajos commemorated the signing of the 1868 treaty in 1968 and 1999. The colonial Southwest was a place where indigenous peoples successively encountered three different foreign cultures: the Spaniards, the Mexicans, and finally the Americans, each of which sought to impose their ways of life on the indigenous peoples. Pueblo peoples like the Santo Domingo, the Acoma, and the San Juan, among others, appeared to accept imposed values and policies of the colonizers; however, they practiced their own way of life, including their religion, in secret. The Diné, who were different from their Pueblo neighbors in lifeways, openly thwarted colonial expansion, including that of the Americans, beginning in 1846. One of the most enduring legacies that shaped southwestern cultures was the slave trade, which intensified with the Spanish and then peaked in the 1860s under American rule. Slave traders targeted Navajo women and children; as a result, cycles of peace and conflict characterized Navajo relationships with colonizers. By the 1860s, Navajos could no longer resist American westward expansion and were subjected to an all-out war, in which they were

www.abc-clio.com

In 1863, legendary Kit Carson and his men traveled through Navajo country destroying cornfields, slaughtering livestock, burning hogans, and cutting down peach orchards. (Library of Congress)

defeated. In 1864, more than ten thousand Navajos were sent to an internment camp near Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Following the U.S. federal policy of forcing indigenous peoples to relocate to reservations and exterminating them if they resisted, General James Carleton conceived an assimilation plan for Navajos. Navajos would be removed to an internment camp at Bosque Redondo, near Fort Sumner in northeastern New Mexico. There, they would become farmers, would live in villages, and would be instructed in Christianity and other American practices. To force the Navajos’ surrender, Carleton enlisted the Indian fighter Kit Carson, who literally scorched Dinétah. In 1863, Carson and his men traveled through Navajo country destroying cornfields, slaughtering livestock, burning hogans, and cutting down peach orchards. By 1864, Navajos were rendered destitute, and they turned themselves in at the American forts. Thousands of Navajos made the journey, the Long Walk, to Carleton’s prison.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Navajo – June 1, 1868

371

behalf of his people: “I hope to God you will not ask me to go to any other country than my own.” Eventually, Navajo leaders persuaded the military officers to allow them to return to their homeland. On June 1, 1868, Navajo leaders signed a treaty with the United States. Navajo leaders agreed to peace between their people and the Americans. Most important to the Navajos was that they would return to their homeland. Other stipulations included the restoration of property seized in times of conflict, trade provisions, and 160-acre land allotments for Navajo families. Navajo leaders promised not to obstruct the building of a railroad that would slice through their best pasturing lands. They promised that their children would go to American schools. The United States promised to keep the peace as well. They also promised annuities as compensation for lands taken and agreed to provide sheep, goats, and horses so that Navajos could reestablish their pastoral economy. The treaty of 1868 is the last one the Navajos signed with the U.S. government, although a number of executive orders increased the

General James Carleton, First California Infantry, c. 1860–1870. (Library of Congress)

Navajos suffered immensely on the Long Walk, for slave raiders waited to steal unsuspecting women and children, and soldiers shot the elderly and pregnant women who could not keep up with the rest. As they crossed the Rio Grande River, many were swept away by the rapids and drowned. The journey ended at the prison camp, where they endured starvation, poverty, sickness, and cold for four long years. Manuelito remained free until 1866 when, ill and starving, he and his band turned themselves in and also made the journey to the prison. The Diné were unsuccessful at farming because of the poor soil and water. Outside the fort’s perimeters, Comanches and New Mexicans waited to steal women and children for the slave trade. Finally, in 1868, the United States admitted that the assimilation plan was a failure. They were also no longer willing to pay the cost of keeping the Diné at the internment camp. At first, it seemed a possibility that the Navajos could be sent to Indian Territory, where many other indigenous peoples had been sent. Barboncito, a respected peace chief, spoke on

www.abc-clio.com

Manuelito was one of the most accomplished Navajo war leaders and was recognized as head chief of the Navajo from 1870 to 1884. (National Archives)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

372

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock – July 3, 1868

References and Further Reading Bighorse, Tiana. 1990. Bighorse the Warrior. Ed. Noel Bennet. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Roessel, Ruth. 1973. Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo Community College Press. Tapahonso, Luci. 1993. Sáanii Dahataal: The Women Are Singing. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock July 3, 1868

A Navajo silversmith with examples of his work and tools, c. 1880. The Navajo are a Southern Athapascan tribe of the American southwest and came to be feared as raiders. Many Navajo were imprisoned at the Bosque Redondo following the Navajo War of 1863–1864, but were allowed to return to their homeland following a treaty in 1868. (National Archives)

size of the Navajo Reservation up to the early twentieth century. On June 18, the People formed a column that stretched at least ten miles long. They were going home. The old people wept in relief. Back home in Dinétah, Navajo families returned to their former homes and reestablished their lives. Their prayers to the Holy People had been answered. The Diné prospered. Their livestock increased. They continued to follow the teachings of their ancestors. They have not forgotten the Long Walk and the prison camp at Bosque Redondo. They also remember the courage and bravery of their leaders during those dark times. Today, the Navajo Nation government continues to remind the U.S. government of the treaty of 1868 and its agreement to recognize and uphold Navajo sovereignty. Jennifer Nez Denetdale See also Barboncito; Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Long Walk; Manuelito.

www.abc-clio.com

This agreement’s official title is “Treaty between the United States of America and the Eastern Band of Shoshones and the Bannack Tribe of Indians.” Concluded on July 3, 1868, at Fort Bridger, Wyoming (then Utah Territory), and proclaimed on February 24, 1869, this treaty remains the basis for the sovereign relations between the United States and both the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation (Wyoming) and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation (Idaho). The treaty declared continued peaceful relations between the parties, established the Wind River Reservation, provided for a Bannock Reservation in Idaho, provided for extensive off-reservation resource rights, allowed individual Indians to take up tracts of land in severalty, and included assistance for agricultural development and education. The various bands of Shoshones and Bannocks had maintained generally peaceful relations with the United States during the overland migration and had been parties to previous treaties both ratified and unratified. Washakie, the principal headman of the Eastern Shoshones, was renowned for his friendship with the United States as well as his influence among his own people. He was a signatory of the ratified Fort Bridger treaty of 1863. The most influential Bannock leader, Taghee, had approved the Soda Springs treaty of October 1863 (part of the same series of treaties negotiated by James Duane Doty), but a legal technicality prevented its ratification. The treaties in 1863 included no land cessions, nor did they designate reservations. The Fort Bridger treaty of 1868 was the final treaty negotiated by the Great Peace Commission of 1867–1868. Conceived of as an all-encompassing solution to the “Indian problem” in the American

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock – July 3, 1868

373

Fort Bridger, Utah Territory (Wyoming), 1858. (Corbis)

A wood engraving of a group of Bannock published in Harper’s Weekly. (Library of Congress)

West, the peace commission negotiated treaties with the tribes of the northern and southern plains and the Navajos as well as the Shoshones and Bannocks. The commission consisted of four civilians and four

www.abc-clio.com

generals, including General William T. Sherman and Commissioner of Indian Affairs Nathaniel G. Taylor. General Christopher C. Augur was the sole member of the commission present at Fort Bridger. Washakie

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

374

Treaty with the Nez Percé – August 13, 1868

ated by executive order in June 1867. Instead, Article II provided that, at a future date, the president might set apart the reservation which was to include “reasonable portions of the ‘Port neuf’ [Fort Hall] and ‘Kansas [sic] Prairie’ countries.” The clerk’s obvious misspelling of Kamas gave later interlopers a specious claim to that area. The federal government never fulfilled its promise to reserve a portion of the Great Camas Prairie. A subsequent executive order designated the Fort Hall Reservation as the Bannock Reservation under the terms of the Fort Bridger treaty. The original dimensions of the reservation were reduced by agreements in 1880, 1881, 1887, and 1900. The off-reservation provisions of the Fort Bridger treaty are especially noteworthy. Article 4 of the treaty reserved to the Shoshones and Bannocks “the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game my be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.” Gregory E. Smoak References and Further Reading Augur, C. C. 1868. C. C. Augur to President of the Indian Peace Commission, Omaha, Nebraska, 4 October 1868. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Irregular Sized Papers. Washington, DC: Record Group 75, U.S. National Archives. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1975. “Introduction,” in Proceedings of the Great Peace Commission of 1867–1869. Washington, DC: The Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Washakie, Shoshone chief, c. 1798–1900. (National Archives and Records Administration)

spoke for the Eastern Shoshones, while Taghee represented the Bannocks (in fact, his followers were a mixed band of Shoshones and Bannocks). Article II of the treaty established the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation and provided for the creation of a “Bannack Reservation.” Washakie claimed “all the country lying between the meridian of Salt Lake City and the line of the North Platte River to the mouth of the Sweetwater,” and wanted “the valley of the Wind River and lands on its tributaries as far east as the Popo-agie” for his reservation. The original dimensions of the Wind River Reservation were reduced by agreements in 1872 and 1898. General Augur sought to consolidate all the bands on a single reservation, but Taghee refused and demanded a separate reservation that would include the Fort Hall area and the Great Camas Prairie of south central Idaho. Augur relented, but as he was “not sufficiently acquainted” with Idaho’s geography, he did not specify the reservation’s exact boundaries. Augur was also apparently unaware that the Fort Hall Reservation had already been cre-

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Nez Percé August 13, 1868 This is an amendment to the treaty concluded at the council ground in the valley of the Lapwai, in the Territory of Washington, on June 9, 1863. The main concerns of the treaty were reservation, allotments, and timber to be protected. Further, it was agreed that misappropriated funds would be ascertained and reimbursed to the tribe. The treaty was signed by Commissioner Nathaniel G. Taylor for the United States and by Lawyer, Timothy, and Jason, chiefs of the Nez Percé tribe.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2 – August 1871

Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2 August 1871 Treaties 1 and 2 are also known as, respectively, the Stone Fort Treaty and the Manitoba Post Treaty. Treaty 1 was signed on August 3, 1871, at Lower Fort Garry, a Hudson’s Bay Company post (constructed of stone), and Treaty 2 was concluded on August 21, 1871, at the Manitoba House post. Treaty negotiations were conducted with the Saulteaux (Ojibwa), the Swampy Cree, and others; upon conclusion, the treaty encompassed parts of present-day central and southern Manitoba. The earliest of the so-called numbered or western treaties, these agreements provided the foundation for a treaty relationship between the Canadian government and various Cree and Ojibwa nations in western Canada, and played a vital role in the process of securing Canadian sovereignty in the region northwest of the 49th parallel. By confederation in 1867, more than 120 treaties and land surrenders had been concluded with indigenous peoples in British North America, part of

the colonial government’s obligations under the Royal Proclamation (1763) to exercise oversight of “Indians and lands reserved for Indians.” Practically, the government also negotiated treaties in order to extinguish aboriginal title and set aside reserves to meet the needs of both assimilation and expanding European settlement. Hard on the heels of confederation (and, in fact, earlier), when the new federal government in Ottawa, Ontario, looked to expand Canadian sovereignty into the northwest, its intentions and worldview remained the basis for the removal of “any obstruction” to settlement and development. Treaties 1 and 2 represented both continuity with the past and a transition into a new period. Neither colonial nor federal governments, however, acted unilaterally in the treaty process. Canada had neither the resources nor the inclination to simply impose its will on aboriginal peoples. Nor was it the only party to initiate the treaty process. Indians also played an important role, pre- and post-confederation, in calling for treaty negotiations as a way of securing protection of

Upper Fort Garry, Manitoba, in the early 1870s. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

375

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

376

Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians – September 20, 1872

lands and livelihood in the face of expanding white settlement. This was no less true in the case of the earliest numbered treaties. In Manitoba, aboriginal anticipation of the need for a treaty to address collective concerns about settler encroachment, trespass, and cultural dissolution found expression in the convening of grand councils, petitions to the government, and the denial of access to resources for settlers and surveyors until a treaty was negotiated. Armed with their respective objectives, in the summer of 1871 government and indigenous delegates met at Lower Fort Garry and launched into negotiations. Treaty 1 talks stretched from July 27 to August 3. Ojibwa and Cree spokesmen began negotiations by claiming reserve lands amounting to some 60 percent of Manitoba; the governmentappointed treaty commissioners offered 160 acres per family of five, an annuity, and threats of inevitable settler stampede (a formula adopted for all the western treaties). After considerable debate, several deadlocks, and threats from both government and indigenous negotiators to end talks, negotiations nevertheless ended with the signing of Treaty 1 on Thursday, August 3, 1871. Based on the apparent success of Treaty 1, Treaty 2 negotiations (for which there is comparatively little documentation) took only one day and ended on August 21. The terms of Treaties 1 and 2 were identical and included a gift of $3, an annuity of $15 (prorated) for each family of five, schools, and 160 acres of land for each family of five, this last item reluctantly accepted by aboriginal delegates. However, as the Indians pointed out, the treaties were incomplete. Conspicuous by their absence were treaty provisions for hunting and fishing rights, as well as for agricultural implements, livestock, and clothing, provisions verbally promised by government negotiators but omitted from the written treaty. Dubbed the “outside promises” by the government, these provisions explain the break in the deadlock over the land question, as the treaty commission reassured the Indians of continued access to hunting and fishing and aid in the transition to a farm economy. Although initially unmoved, in 1875 the federal government eventually responded to indigenous protests and the evidence of its own treaty commissioners and revised Treaties 1 and 2 to include the other provisions. Government officials considered the matter resolved. Treaties 1 and 2 established the precedent and experience for all subsequent treaties in western

www.abc-clio.com

Canada. Yet a number of promises were not granted, and government practices in fulfilling treaty obligations, especially in the context of expanding settlement and development, became a source of tension and conflict. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7, 1850. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada. Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Ray, Arthur J., Jim Miller, and Frank Tough. 2000. Bounty and Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan Treaties. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians September 20, 1872 This treaty amended the treaty of February 19, 1867, which was made at Washington, D.C., with the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux. Sections 3 through 9 were stricken out of the previously mentioned treaty by amended agreement. The treaty was signed by Commissioners Moses N. Adams, William H. Forbes, and James Smith, Jr., for the United States and by fifty-eight chiefs and soldiers of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux.

Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians March 2, 1873 This is an amendment to a previous treaty of September 20, 1872, with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Dakota or Sioux. Sections 3 through 9 were stricken out of the previously mentioned treaty by amended agreement. This treaty was signed by Commissioners Moses N. Adams, James Smith, Jr.,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 3 – October 3, 1873

and William H. Forbes for the United States and by thirty-one chiefs and headmen of the said bands.

Canadian Indian Treaty 3 October 3, 1873 Treaty 3, or the Northwest Angle Treaty, was signed on October 3, 1873, after several years of protracted and difficult negotiations between the Dominion of Canada and the Lake of the Woods Saulteaux. For Canada, this treaty secured the completion of the Dawson Route, begun in 1868 and designed to link the settlement at Lake of the Woods to Fort Garry. Gaining access to Saulteaux territory would also facilitate a transcontinental railway—a crucial step in maintaining British Columbia’s membership in confederation (1871). Canada was a new country, and its success, especially in the face of American expansionism, also depended on colonization, which in turn required friendly relations with area First Nations. These factors made it necessary to enter into diplomatic discussions and, to a great degree, gave these First Nations enhanced negotiating power in dealing with dominion representatives. The Saulteaux succeeded both in appreciating the value of the lands at stake and in using the rhetoric of the moment. Negotiations began in July 1871 but broke off several times, primarily because the First Nations preferred to treat only for a rightof-way through their territory rather than for an allout surrender. Talks finally resumed on September 24, 1873, at the North West Angle, Lake of the Woods. Alexander Morris, the lieutenant governor of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories; J. A. N. Provencher, Indian affairs commissioner; and S. J. Dawson, member of parliament for Algoma, represented the dominion. These commissioners met a group of eight hundred Saulteaux, whose chiefs spoke on behalf of an estimated population of fourteen thousand. After much discussion, the Saulteaux, led by Chief Mawedopenais from Fort Frances, accepted the following terms: a gratuity of $12, plus an annuity of $5 for each member, and a land base of one square mile (640 acres/259 hectares) per family of five or in that proportion. Chiefs would receive an annuity of $25 with an annual payment of $15 for each of their head men, plus a new set of clothes every three years, a commemorative medal, and a flag. The commissioners agreed to offer an annual stipend of $1,500 for agricultural implements and

www.abc-clio.com

377

seed, and ammunition and fishing supplies. Natives could also continue to hunt and fish on unsettled lands. At the request of the negotiating chiefs, the commissioners promised that the signatories would be exempt from fighting in commonwealth wars and that schools would be provided for their children. On their part, the Saulteaux transferred more than 55,000 square miles (142,450 square kilometers), situated mostly in the northwestern portion of Ontario and encompassing the watershed of Lake Superior to the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, and from the American border north to the height of land where the waters flow to Hudson Bay. Following the negotiations, the conference broke off for an hour to allow the final terms to be written into the treaty document, and resumed once the document was completed. It was read out in Ojibwa by James McKay, then signed by the commissioners and twenty-four chiefs and headmen. The following day, the Indians were paid by representatives from the Department of Public Works, and the gathering dispersed. Subsequent adhesions to the treaty were signed at Shebadowan on October 13, 1873, at Lac Seul on June 9, 1874, and by the Métis of Rainy River and Rainy Lake on September 12, 1875. Treaty 3 became the format for future treaties, setting up conditions and promises that—at least in theory—created a living agreement between Canada’s First Nations and the Crown. Some scholars attribute to the keen negotiating skills of the Saulteaux and their fortuitous location along the coveted Dawson Route the responsibility for raising the treaty terms and setting a more salubrious precedent for those First Nations signing subsequent numbered treaties in the western provinces of Canada. Treaty 3 was also the first treaty to recognize Métis rights and to provide ongoing funding for the support of education, agriculture, and hunting and fishing. Laurie Leclair See also Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2–August 1871; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Métis; Sovereignty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Land. References and Further Reading Daugherty, W. E. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty Three (1873). Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

378

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 – September 15, 1874

Morris, Alexander. 1991. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories including The Negotiations on which they were based (First Printing 1880), reprint by Fifth House Publishers, Saskatoon, SK. See Chapter 5, “Treaty Number Three or the Northwest Angle Treaty,” pp. 44–76, pp. 320–329.

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 September 15, 1874 Treaty 4, or the Qu’Appelle Treaty, represented the fourth of the so-called numbered or western treaties negotiated in western Canada. Treaty 4 was negotiated in September 1874 by the government of Canada and the Cree, Saulteaux (Ojibwa), and Nakota or Assiniboine Indians toward the extinguishment of aboriginal title and establishment of reserve lands in the southern and central regions of the present-day province of Saskatchewan. After a tense and difficult negotiation process that began near the Qu’Appelle lakes on September 8 and ended on September 15, the federal government succeeded in gaining a surrender of some seventy-five thousand square miles of territory. The Qu’Appelle Treaty was the product of the Canadian government’s need, after confederation in

1867, to secure territory ranging from northwestern Ontario to the Pacific Ocean for settlement, development, and the assertion of national sovereignty, a process that began with the 1870 transfer of those lands from the Hudson’s Bay Company and the first numbered treaties. Treaty 4 represented another step in that direction. Aboriginal peoples of the Northwest were also deeply interested in negotiating a treaty in order to ensure economic and cultural security in the face of an uncertain future, and they had conveyed such concerns to the lieutenant governor of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories several years earlier. Negotiations in Manitoba and Ontario in 1871 and 1873 set the precedents for the remaining western treaties. These precedents came into play at the negotiations for Treaty 4. Held near the Qu’Appelle lakes in southern Saskatchewan, the negotiations are notable for their relative brevity because, though government treaty commissioners and Native negotiators met for nearly a week, the actual time dedicated to negotiating treaty terms amounted to barely one day. The first five days were spent amid tense disagreement between the Cree and Saulteaux, and then between the Saulteaux and the treaty commission, over the status of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the land in question. Saulteaux negotiators argued

An Assiniboine camp in Lac de Marons, Manitoba, 1874. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 – September 15, 1874

379

Cree in Alberta, Canada, c. 1870–1910. (Library and Archives Canada)

that the company did not have the right to dispose of land that belonged to the Cree and Saulteaux. They argued, further, that the company should be restricted in its trading activities, while spokesmen for the Cree added that Indians’ debts should be forgiven as a fair exchange for the profits gained when the company transferred the land to Canada. The overriding concern, however, was entitlement to the land covered by the treaty. By September 15, the sixth day of talks, through a combination of counterarguments and broad promises the commission was finally able to address treaty terms. There remained, however, very little discussion or debate: aboriginal negotiators were prepared to accept terms similar to those agreed to by the Ojibwa at the Lake of the Woods under the Northwest Angle Treaty, or Treaty 3 (1873). The terms were explained by the treaty commission, and in return for the relinquishment of their title to the land ceded, the Indians were to receive reserves based on one square mile for each family of five (prorated) and located by them, annuity payments,

www.abc-clio.com

schools, equipment and livestock upon taking up farming, and promises of continued access to hunting and fishing. Over the following year, a number of other Cree, Ojibwa, and Assiniboine groups not in attendance joined Treaty 4 under the same terms. Notably, in the latter stages of treaty talks, aboriginal negotiators twice asked that the Métis, their mixed-blood kin, also be given due consideration. Shortly after negotiations, these Métis petitioned the treaty commissioners, formally requesting recognition of their land holdings as well as hunting and fishing rights. In both instances, the government gave only vague reassurances. According to the text of Treaty 4, Indian nations had consented to absolute surrender of their lands in exchange for reserves and other provisions. Based on the records of the negotiations for Treaty 4, however, and not unlike the other numbered treaties, there was a notable contrast between the government’s and the Indians’ presentations of the land question. Aside from vague reassurances, government negotiators said very little about the land and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

380

Canadian Indian Treaty 5 – September 24, 1875

showed little patience for the specific concerns and questions of the Indians. Not surprisingly, the interpretations of the government and the First Nation elders continue to show a marked contrast in their understanding of Treaty 4. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains. References and Further Reading Carter, Sarah. 1991. Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada. Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Ray, Arthur J., Jim Miller, and Frank Tough. 2000. Bounty and Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan Treaties. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Canadian Indian Treaty 5 September 24, 1875 Another one of the so-called numbered or western treaties, Treaty 5, or the Winnipeg Treaty, encompassed lands in the present-day province of Manitoba, north of Treaty 2 territory, surrounding Lake Winnipeg and eventually extending north to the sixtieth parallel. Negotiations for Treaty 5 took place between the Canadian government and nations of the Saulteaux (Ojibwa) and Swampy Cree in the autumn of 1875; the treaty was concluded September 24, 1875. Although signed in 1875, adhesions to Treaty 5 incorporating more northerly aboriginal groups were conducted in 1876, 1908, 1909, and 1910. In 1910, some 133,400 square miles of land had been ceded. Like the earlier treaties, aboriginal peoples in central and northern Manitoba petitioned the government for a treaty to ensure the protection of their traditional economy and culture, and to facilitate their adaptation to economic development spreading from eastern Canada. More immediate aboriginal concerns included the increasing intrusions of commercial trapping, the expanding presence of commercial interests such as lumber companies, and the problem of employment as boatmen and couriers lost to steamboats and faster water transport. Initially, from the perspective of a government preoccupied with the agricultural development of the southern regions of western Canada, the Lake Winnipeg region held limited agricultural potential; the need for a new treaty appeared premature and unnecessary. Unlike the

www.abc-clio.com

earlier numbered treaties negotiated earlier in western Canada, therefore, Treaty 5 did not entail large tracts of fertile lands coveted for settlement and therefore was not central to federal plans for agricultural development. By 1875, the government’s earlier reluctance to negotiate a new treaty gave way to reconsideration of the long-term potential of the region for (limited) settlement (particularly around the southern shores of Lake Winnipeg), transportation, and resource exploitation. In September of that year, a treaty commission set off for Lake Winnipeg and points north to negotiate with the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree. The commissioners had their orders: negotiations were to be kept short, and the Indians in this region were to be dealt with less generously than the peoples of the plains. Negotiations at Berens River and Norway House were in fact fairly brief (one day each), and any difficult questions posed by aboriginal negotiators were quickly surmounted with a combination of counterarguments and vague reassurances. By September 24, Treaty 5 had been signed, and adhesions (documents that bind the signatories to existing treaties) were obtained from outstanding groups over the next year. The government, having argued in effect that it was doing the Indians a favor in negotiating for lands that were deemed not as valuable as the fertile belt to the south, granted terms that were less favorable than those under Treaties 3 and 4. The provisions of Treaty 5 characteristically included annuity payments, reserves of 160 acres per family of five, schools, farming equipment and livestock, hunting and fishing equipment (twine), and promises of the continued right to pursue hunting and fishing, subject to the needs of certain lands for government or private use (a qualifier that affected reserves also). After several decades, as Manitoba’s boundaries extended north to the 60th parallel and government interests in resource exploitation heightened in pace with a growing economy, it became necessary to extinguish aboriginal title to lands in that region. Treaty 5 was therefore extended north of Lake Winnipeg. From 1908 to 1910, adhesions were secured, incorporating the remaining Cree and Chipewyan or Dene peoples into Treaty 5 under the same terms. Treaty 5 stands out rather uniquely as one in the anticipation and initiation of which aboriginal groups played a most substantial role. At the same time, the brevity of negotiations is characteristic of a

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 6 – August 28, September 9, 1876

process in which considerably less attention was paid to the needs of indigenous signatories than to ensuring control of the land for future economic development. As a result, a number of problems emerged that were based in fundamentally different understandings of the treaty terms as explained during negotiations. Although aboriginal peoples expected some measure of aid in times of dislocation, when those sources of dislocation arrived—railway surveys and construction, lumber companies, mining—they were struck by government inaction, in stark contrast to the generosity conveyed at treaty negotiations. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Indian Treaty Making: A Native View. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada. Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Tough, Frank. 1996. “As Their Natural Resources Fail”: Native Peoples and the Economic History of Northern Manitoba. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Canadian Indian Treaty 6 August 28, September 9, 1876 Of the eleven numbered or western treaties, Treaty 6, negotiated and signed in the summer of 1876 at Forts Carlton and Pitt in the present-day provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, was one of a group of agreements negotiated between the government of Canada and aboriginal peoples of the northwestern plains. Treaty 6 was also one more in a series of treaties brought about largely through indigenous initiative, in this case predominantly by the majority inhabitants of the Saskatchewan River country, the Cree. Negotiations for Treaty 6 passed through several stages of talks: at Fort Carlton from August 18 to

North West Mounted Police constable with Plains Indian, Alberta, Canada, c. 1874–1890. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

381

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

382

Canadian Indian Treaty 7 – September 22, December 4, 1877

23, then from August 24 to 28, and at Fort Pitt from September 7 to 9. By the end of the process, the government of Canada had succeeded in extinguishing aboriginal title to some 120,000 square miles of land in central Alberta and Saskatchewan. By the early 1870s, the Canadian government had planned to extend its sovereignty across the prairie region to the western coast through a very gradual treaty process, but only as its need for more territory (for settlement, resources, and so on) arose. Yet Cree perceptions of their own conditions and needs also informed and influenced government decisions about treaty making in western Canada. After the signing of the first two numbered treaties in 1871, a variety of observers, from Hudson’s Bay Company officials to government surveyors, conveyed the dissatisfaction of the Plains Cree and other indigenous groups with the slow pace of treaty making. Cree leaders based their calls for a treaty on the need to protect their lands and culture, both threatened by worsening conditions that included diminishing buffalo numbers and game generally, and increasing intrusions by settlers, hunters, whiskey traders, and surveyors. As well, the decision had been made to adapt to change by taking up farming, for which aid was needed. Though still hesitant, the government, moved by concerns of Indian unrest, finally agreed to negotiate a treaty after receiving reports in the summer of 1875 of Cree interference with the Geological Survey. A treaty commission was struck, and negotiations began the following summer at Fort Carlton. The main gathering took place at Fort Carlton. Although dominated by the Plains Cree, talks here also included members of the Swampy Cree, Plains Ojibwa, Saulteaux (Ojibwa), and some Assiniboine and Chipewyan (Dene). The opening ceremonies and speeches conveyed the traditional expressions of mutual trust and friendship. Treaty terms resembled those of the first five treaties: cash gratuity and annuity payments, lands to be set aside as reserves (in this case, 640 acres per family of five), agricultural implements and instruction, schools, and hunting guarantees, as well as additional livestock and supplies for each chief. Cree and Ojibwa negotiators raised all the same concerns that neighbors and kin had in Treaty 4 talks. Treaty 6 negotiations proved turbulent, as treaty commissioners vied with Cree and Ojibwa negotiators, who in turn struggled with government negotiators—and interpreters—and dissent among members of their own followings. Some influential dissenters among the Cree and Ojibwa

www.abc-clio.com

rejected the government’s parceling out of land. In council, however, the positions of the chiefs eventually prevailed. When the treaty was signed on August 23, 1876, treaty terms included government promises of aid in times of famine. The successful completion of negotiations at Carlton facilitated the signing of Treaty 6 by other Cree and Ojibwa groups in the talks that followed. On August 28, several Cree chiefs, late arrivals to Fort Carlton, accepted the terms of the treaty. In September, at Fort Pitt, the second, more westerly site for Treaty 6 negotiations, the same terms were also accepted by the Cree and other groups of Indians. As with the earlier treaties, the conclusion of Treaty 6 raised more questions than it resolved. One overriding issue was (and remains) interpretation. Problems appeared at several levels: competent interpreters for treaty negotiations; verbal assurances versus treaty text; and the aboriginal interpretation of such European concepts as land surrender. It is not even clear that land surrender was discussed at Treaty 6 negotiations. Although pursued by some Cree leaders, the government proved more generous with assurances than with details. In the years after 1876, as settlement advanced along with disease, and famine and hardships for plains peoples intensified, discrepancies between government promises and aboriginal understanding became stark. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada. Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Taylor, John Leonard. 1999. “Two Views on the Meaning of Treaties Six and Seven.” In The Spirit of Alberta Indian Treaties, ed. Richard Price. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

Canadian Indian Treaty 7 September 22, December 4, 1877 Treaty 7 was the last of the numbered treaties negotiated by the Canadian government in the 1870s. Also known as the Blackfoot Treaty because the Blackfoot

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 7 – September 22, December 4, 1877

383

A smallpox (variola) virus particle, or a single “virion” is depicted. Because of a lack of immunity, this disease plagued Indian peoples in Canada and the United States. In a few instances, smallpox-infected blankets were traded to Indians. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

dominated the region ceded, it encompassed some fifty thousand square miles of land near the Rocky Mountains in the southern region of the present province of Alberta, territory inhabited by the Blackfoot Nation—Siksika (Blackfoot), Blood, Peigan—as well as the Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), Assiniboine, and Stoney. Treaty negotiations were conducted at Blackfoot Crossing along the Bow River in 1877 and ran from September 19 to September 22. Negotiations ended that day, and Treaty 7 was signed by the government and aboriginal leaders. The government’s motivation for negotiating Treaty 7 rested largely on the need to complete the extension of its sovereignty westward. Specifically, this meant the acquisition of land that would enable Ottawa to run a transcontinental railway to the west

www.abc-clio.com

coast, a major condition for the entry of British Columbia into confederation. A rail line would also encourage large-scale immigration into the west. The Blackfoot, meanwhile, favored a treaty precisely because of the rising numbers of settlers and traders penetrating the region they inhabited. By the early 1870s, circumstances for the Blackfoot and their neighbors had changed considerably. The Blackfoot were already weakened and reduced in number by a deadly combination of smallpox and whiskey (a prominent item in the buffalo robe trade); conditions had worsened by 1876, when famine threatened as some five thousand Sioux, refugees from the United States, arrived on the southern edge of their territory. In 1874, the North West Mounted Police were sent in to restore some semblance of order in the region.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

384

Canadian Indian Treaty 7 – September 22, December 4, 1877

Although the Blackfoot resented the intruding settlers and traders who followed in the wake of the Mounted Police, they also saw the Mounties as allies who had cleared out the whiskey traders, restored peace, and treated the Blackfoot fairly. Aboriginal relations with the police were also, therefore, a factor influencing the Blackfoot and other nations toward a treaty in 1877. In the spring of that year, the Blackfoot delegated two missionaries to convey a memorial to the government on behalf of the Blackfoot and their neighbors. The following July, a treaty commission was formed and instructed to proceed to Blackfoot Crossing to negotiate a treaty with the Indians there. One of the treaty commissioners was also a commissioner of the Mounted Police. After some delay, treaty negotiations began on September 19. Talks proceeded along lines similar to those of earlier treaties, with introductory speeches and government explanations of treaty terms, the latter of which included gratuity and annuity payments, reserves of land of 640 acres per family of five, farming implements and livestock, ammunition for hunting, schools, laws to protect buffalo, and

additional supplies for chiefs and councils. Although relatively short, the negotiations were not without incident. Problems occurred with interpreters, one of whom had a weak grasp of English, whereas others proved inadequate to the task of fully explaining such treaty terms as reserves and land surrenders. Initial indigenous responses to the government’s terms ranged from ambivalence and opposition to weak approval. An agreement was reached two days later and has been attributed to a combination of government misinformation, misunderstanding, and the overriding influence of the Blackfoot chief, Crowfoot. Crowfoot, trusted by the other chiefs as one loyal to his people while also enjoying the confidence of the government, was in turn influenced by his good relations with the Mounted Police. When he decided to accept the treaty, the assent of the other chiefs followed. On Saturday, September 22, Treaty 7 was signed, supplies and payments distributed, and reserves then located by the various chiefs. Another signing took place on December 4 to accommodate Blackfeet officials who were not present at the September signing.

Indians on horseback at Blackfoot Reserve, Alberta, Canada. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 8 – June 21, 1899

Although initially satisfied with the immediate results of the treaty, the Blackfoot and other tribes soon encountered problems attributed to the terms and administration of Treaty 7. By 1880, as settler populations increased, buffalo numbers rapidly declined, and starvation threatened. The following decade found the Blackfoot and other Treaty 7 tribes wondering about the government’s sincerity in fulfilling its obligations, especially as railway construction intruded upon some reserves, and disputes arose over the inadequate size of others. The land question remains a fundamental source of conflict, one based in problems of interpretation and conflicting cultural conceptions. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dempsey, Hugh. 1989. Crowfoot: Chief of the Blackfeet. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, et al. 1997. The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

385

Shannon, and James H. Teller and by twenty chiefs and headmen of the various bands of the Sioux. The main concerns of the treaty were cession of the Great Sioux Reservation, allotments, cattle and oxen to be furnished, education, and land grants for schools. Separate reservations were to be created for those at the Pine Ridge agency, the Rosebud agency, the Rock agency Indians, the Cheyenne River agency, and the Lower Brulés. Further, the United States was to furnish to each reservation a physician, a carpenter, a miller, an engineer, a farmer, and a blacksmith for a period of ten years.

Agreement with the Columbia and Colville July 7, 1883 Under the terms of this agreement, the Colville Indians were to forfeit rights to the Columbia Reservation and to remove to the Colville Reservation. The agreement was signed by H. M. Teller, secretary of the interior, and H. Price, commissioner of Indian affairs, for the United States; by Chief Moses and Sasr-sarp-kin of the Columbia Reservation; and by Tonaskat of the Colville Reservation.

Canadian Indian Treaty 8 June 21, 1899 One of the last of the eleven numbered or western treaties, Treaty 8 was a product of the mutual con-

Agreement with the Crow May 14, 1880 This treaty was signed in Washington but never ratified. However, six chiefs of the Crow tribe promised to try to obtain the consent of the adult male members of the tribe to cede all that part of the Crow Reservation in the Territory of Montana on condition. Further, the United States reaffirmed all existing provisions of the treaty of May 7, 1868, and was to give the tribe added annuities and sums.

Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes October 17, 1882, to January 3, 1883 This agreement was made pursuant to an item in the sundry civil act of Congress, approved August 7, 1882, by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, Peter C.

www.abc-clio.com

Klondike gold rush (1899–1900) burro pack train at Dyea Point. Treaty 8 was a product of the mutual concern of indigenous peoples and the Canadian government over the advance of prospectors and settlers into northwestern Canada in the 1890s. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

386

Canadian Indian Treaty 8 – June 21, 1899

Athapascan mother and children. (Library of Congress)

cern of indigenous peoples and the Canadian government over the advance of prospectors and settlers into northwestern Canada in the 1890s. This penetration culminated in the Klondike gold rush in 1897–1898; the government moved to extend the treaty process to the Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake, and Peace River regions (present-day northern Saskatchewan, Alberta, southern Northwest Territories, and northeastern British Columbia). Treaty negotiations were conducted at several sites in the summer of 1899 (adhesions were secured the following year) and included more than 2,700 people from two major cultural groups: Athapaskan, or Dene, and Cree peoples, along with some 1,700 Métis or mixed-blood kin. The main objectives of the treaty commissioners were essentially to obtain the relinquishment of aboriginal title to the government of Canada and to gain the acquiescence of the northern Métis in the surrender. With regard to the primary goal of surrender of title, the commission was instructed to offer reserve lands in common (bands) or in sev-

www.abc-clio.com

eralty (individual plots), based on 160 acres per person. Treaty provisions also included annuity payments, schools, farming implements, livestock, and hunting and fishing supplies. The principle concern of the Cree and Dene was how Treaty 8 would affect their use of the land. For the Cree at Lesser Slave Lake, the first negotiation site, as for virtually all the northern nations affected, the land question was conceived somewhat differently, and reserves were not a part of that conception. The Cree at Lesser Slave Lake, for example, refused to sign the treaty until their demands were met. These included guarantees that the traditional economy of the Cree would be protected and that they would be able to continue to hunt and fish as they always had. The commission’s acquiescence to Cree demands enabled treaty proceedings at Lesser Slave Lake to be concluded in three days, and after some additional discussion, designated Cree leaders signed on June 21. The treaty commissioners believed that the treaty signing at Lesser Slave Lake was of paramount importance because it would determine the success of the trip thereafter. Although this proved to be largely the case, it is not clear how well the terms of the treaty were explained during negotiations nor how much was understood by the Cree— with the possible exception of the promises concerning hunting and fishing freedom. The commission, however, considered the first treaty signing a good precedent. The Cree and Chipewyan who assembled for treaty negotiations at Fort Chipewyan represented the largest gathering of the summer of 1899. Like the Cree of Lesser Slave Lake, the Chipewyan and Cree at Fort Chipewyan also insisted on guarantees to unencumbered hunting, trapping, and fishing before they would sign. The swiftness of the proceedings at Fort Chipewyan suggests that these were granted, as does the report of the commissioners: at Fort Chipewyan and every point thereafter, fears of the curtailment of hunting and fishing rights received assurances that the treaty would not result in any such interference. The treaty was signed on July 13. Not all Treaty 8 talks went so smoothly. Negotiations at Fond du Lac (along the boundary between present-day Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories), where the government’s principle concern was the development of mining projects in the region between Fond du Lac and the Great

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 8 – June 21, 1899

387

Murchison’s Rapids in the North Thompson River, British Columbia, 1871. (Library and Archives Canada)

Slave Lake, proved volatile. Notably, only after the intervention of a local missionary did the Fond du Lac Dene sign the treaty on July 27. By the end of the summer, Treaty 8 negotiations were concluded; adhesions were completed in the summer of 1900. The haste with which Treaty 8 negotiations were conducted, and the nature and interpretation of Treaty 8 provisions, most of which were taken directly from earlier prairie treaties and demonstrated little appreciation of subarctic aboriginal cultures, generated more conflict in later years. By the early twentieth century, as the numbers of commercial trappers, game laws, and developers penetrated the northern territories, Treaty 8 appeared to provide little protection for signatory nations. The aboriginal concern with the protection of tradi-

www.abc-clio.com

tional economies remained a bone of contention long after the negotiation of Treaty 8. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Métis. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fumoleau, Rene. 1973. As Long as This Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty 8 and 11. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Price, Richard T., ed. 1999. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties, 3rd ed. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

388

Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty) – November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906

Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty) November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906 Treaty 9, or the James Bay Treaty, was another in the series of agreements known as the numbered treaties that were made with the indigenous peoples of Canada. Not unlike several of the western treaties, Treaty 9 was made with northern aboriginal cultures, in this case, Ojibwa and Cree nations in present-day northern Ontario. It was, in fact, the first treaty negotiated with the Amerindians of the Hudson-James Bay drainage area. In common with the other northern treaties, Treaty 9 came about in part because of indigenous concerns about looming white invasions and the concomitant petitions for a treaty (both of which began in the early 1880s), but also because the Canadian government eventually responded to increasing aboriginal calls for a treaty only when motivated to do so by the needs of mining development and railway construction in the early twentieth century. Signed in 1905 and 1906, Treaty 9 encompassed all unceded lands from the height of land to the Albany River. All remaining territory north of the Albany River and along the southern coast of Hudson’s Bay and east of James Bay was

later incorporated into Treaty 9 by adhesions taken in 1929 and 1930. Treaty 9 negotiations are notable for a couple of reasons. Because the treaty included lands within a constituted province of Canada and therefore involved two jurisdictions, negotiations had to take place at two levels: first, between the federal and provincial governments, and then between the treaty commission (consisting of federal and provincial representatives) and the Cree and Ojibwa Nations. Based on the historical evidence, some scholars argue that negotiations between the two levels of governments were more substantive than those between the treaty commission and indigenous peoples. This is borne out in part by the extensive nature of federal-provincial negotiations, which stretched over a number of years amid considerable struggle over jurisdictions and treaty negotiations with the Ojibwa and Cree Nations that arguably involved little or no significant negotiations. Throughout the summers of 1905 and 1906, treaty commissioners met with northern nations at a number of sites. Among these were Osnaburgh, Forts Hope and Albany, Moose Factory, Fort Abitibi, Mattawagamingue, New Brunswick House, and Long Lake. As was characteristic of some of the other

James Bay Treaty commissioners paddle the Pic River en route to Long Lake, 1906. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty) – November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906

389

The town of Moose Factory, Ontario, c. 1870. (Library and Archives Canada)

treaties, negotiations were brief; indigenous concerns about restrictions against hunting and fishing were answered by government officials with reassurances to the contrary (ironically, at about the same time that provincial police and game wardens were confiscating furs obtained out of season from Native hunters in other parts of the province). By the end of August 1906, Treaty 9 negotiations had ended, and the treaty was signed; notably, a number of chiefs signed in syllabic characters. Adhesions were completed years later. Perhaps more clearly in the negotiations than in the text of the treaty, Treaty 9 nonetheless promised the continued (though not unfettered) right to pursue hunting, trapping, and fishing; reserves of one square mile for each family of five; cash payments; and education, in return for the extinguishment of the signatory nations’ aboriginal title, their good conduct, and observance of the King’s law. The absence of agricultural provisions in the treaty was due to lack of arable land and to government anticipation that indigenous northern peoples would remain hunters and trappers in the future.

www.abc-clio.com

Although, early on, the indigenous peoples of northern Ontario conveyed their gratitude to the government for including them in the treaty and providing them with schools, problems arose on several fronts. A number of concerns were increasingly voiced about the declining value of treaty annuities, problems with reserves, the nonrecognition or exclusion of particular aboriginal communities from the treaty, and the impact of provincial game laws. In the case of reserves, confusion spread regarding their purpose, locations, and entitlement. In some cases, the reserve problem would persist until the 1970s, and problems that involved indigenous hunting and fishing rights would endure even longer. Some of the evidence suggests that these problems lingered in part because, not unlike other treaties, the provincial and federal Canadian governments had determined the terms of Treaty 9 well before negotiations with the indigenous nations, and these terms were not offered but effectively dictated. Other evidence suggests that promises communicated orally during negotiations were inadequately explained and/or simply never implemented by the government. Jason M. Yaremko

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

390

Canadian Indian Treaty 10 – September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907

See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873; Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7, 1850. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morrison, James. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty No. 9. Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research Centre. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Rogers, Edward, and Donald B. Smith, eds. 1994. Aboriginal Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Historical Studies Series.

Canadian Indian Treaty 10 September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907 Treaty 10 both resembled and differed from the earlier numbered treaties made in western Canada. It resembled the treaties signed with the indigenous peoples of the Canadian plains, which exhorted the Indians to surrender aboriginal title to lands they occupied, in exchange for promises of education, agricultural aid, the provision of reserves (one square mile per family of five) or individual plots (160 acres), cash payments, and continued access to hunting, trapping, and fishing. Like Treaty 8, however, this treaty was distinct in its attention to northern territories occupied by the Cree and Chipewyan or Dene nations, and those parts of the subarctic prairies not ceded (though this was originally intended) under Treaty 8, including northern Saskatchewan and part of east-central Alberta. Like Treaty 8, Indian and Métis calls for protection against the eventual onslaught of white intrusion involving development and settlement were ignored by the federal government in Ottawa until the formation of the province of Saskatchewan in 1905, when potential Indian interference with future resource access, exploitation, transportation, and economic development became a palpable concern. The following year, a commission was struck to negotiate a new treaty in the north. Unable to complete the task in time, this commission was followed by another one in 1907. The principal negotiation

www.abc-clio.com

sites were Ile á la Crosse in 1906 and Lac du Brochet in 1907. Like earlier treaties, the treaty parties were aided in their efforts by missionaries. Some treaty commission members involved in Treaty 8 negotiations were instructed to use this document as a template for the negotiation and final agreement for Treaty 10. Negotiations began in the summer of 1906. The treaty commission’s essential tasks included the extinguishment of aboriginal title and acquiescence of the northern Métis in the cession. This involved the settlement of outstanding Métis claims through the offer of inclusion in the treaty (as Indians) or provision of a one-time grant, called scrip. As noted, treaty terms resembled those of earlier western treaties, with the exception of farming provisions, which remained vague. This was due in large part to the government’s expectation that northern hunters and trappers would maintain their traditional way of life into the foreseeable future. The fundamental concerns of the Cree and Dene peoples of northern Saskatchewan mirrored those of indigenous concerns in Treaties 8 and 9 and all previous treaty negotiations: the security of traditional livelihoods, the land question, education, and health care. Of these, land loomed largest. Although Indian bands made some requests specific to their regional and local needs (concerning, for example, annuities, farming, and medical aid), northern Cree and Dene peoples all shared the same concerns about the continued freedom to fish, hunt, and trap, and indigenous negotiators voiced their demands for continued access to traditional resources and ways of life. The same fears about maintaining livelihoods without access to resources that were raised in earlier northern treaty negotiations surfaced repeatedly. Cree and Dene negotiators at Ile á la Crosse and Lac du Brochet pressed the government for assurances that their hunting and fishing rights would be protected. In turn, treaty commissioners reassured indigenous leaders that their ways of life would be maintained and not infringed upon, while minimizing the impact of game laws and white encroachment. Of the latter issue one commissioner appears to have made no mention at all. The directness of indigenous negotiators’ questioning and concerns, a product, in part, of the familiarity with the terms of earlier treaties, contrasted with the vague guarantees of the treaty commissions. One chief even enquired as to whether the treaty could be amended at a later date. This, like other points raised, was rejected by the government.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Indian Treaty 11 – June 27 to August 30, 1921

Negotiations, though intense, were relatively brief, ranging from one to three days, suggesting that the vague but repeated guarantees of the government (along with occasional reminders of the inevitability of white penetration and settlement) overcame the initial fears and resistance of northern Indian nations. Negotiations ended with the signing of Treaty 10 at Ile á la Crosse on September 19, 1906, and at Lac du Brochet on August 22, 1907. The paucity of documentation for Treaty 10 negotiations leaves a number of questions unanswered, especially with respect to the extent to which government negotiators elaborated on treaty terms and how well they were understood by the Cree and Dene peoples who became bound by them. In the clash between the needs and interests of the federal (and provincial) government and those of the northern nations, the legacy of industrial development and indigenous underdevelopment suggests the triumph of government expediency. Jason M. Yaremko See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Canadian Indian Treaty 8–June 21, 1899; Métis. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen.

391

Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ray, Arthur, Jim Miller, and Frank J. Tough. 2000. Bounty and Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan Treaties. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Canadian Indian Treaty 11 June 27 to August 30, 1921 In Canada, numerous treaties have been made between the Crown and indigenous peoples. Generally, these are pacts in which First Nations peoples exchange specific interests and title to land for recognized rights and benefits from the Crown. Although the Crown generally interprets the agreements as contractual ones, First Nations peoples understand treaties as solemn agreements forming the basis for evolving relationships between themselves and recently established, nonindigenous governments. Treating with indigenous peoples became an established diplomatic practice of European governments seeking to consolidate their power in North America from the sixteenth to the

A camp scene of the Imperial Oil Co. expedition to the Fort Norman oil fields, Northwest Territory, 1921. (Library and Archives Canada)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

392

Canadian Indian Treaty 11 – June 27 to August 30, 1921

The arrival of the first boat after winter, Fort Providence, Northwest Territory, 1929. (Library and Archives Canada)

nineteenth centuries. After Canadian confederation in 1867 and the dominion government’s assumption of responsibilities for relations with indigenous peoples, the primary purpose of treaty making became to secure the surrender of indigenous peoples’ rights and interests to lands and resources in order to clear the way for settlement and resource extraction. The numbered treaties were those treaties negotiated by the new dominion government between 1870 and 1922. Treaty 11 was the last such treaty, signed in 1921 and 1922 by Dene along the Mackenzie valley, including the Dogrib, Sahtu, Gwich’in, and Deh Cho Dene peoples. The treaty was motivated by the discovery of significant oil reserves at Norman Wells, near the community of present day Tulita in the Sahtu region of the Northwest Territories. Canada sent Commissioner Conroy along with Anglican Bishop Breynat to treat with the Dene; in addition, Conroy was head of the associated Halfbreed Commission, charged with taking applications for Halfbreed Scrip. The treaty was signed between June 27 and August 30, 1921, by Dene in the commu-

www.abc-clio.com

nities of Fort Providence, Fort Simpson, Fort Wrigley, Fort Norman (Tulita), Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Fort Rae, and Arctic Red River (Tsiigehtchic) with a further adhesion by Deh Cho Dene at Fort Liard the following year. In 1973, plans for development on Dene lands without Dene consent prompted Dene chiefs collectively to register a caveat on their lands as a way to ensure participation in decisions around development, which eventually went to court. In the Caveat case, also known as the Paulette case, Justice William Morrow of the Northwest Territories Court heard testimony from many Dene elders regarding the issue of whether Dene had agreed to extinguish their rights and surrender their lands during treaty negotiations. The memories and oral traditions of the elders revealed the Dene understanding of the treaty as one of peace and friendship, which did not include surrender of rights or lands. Although Justice Morrow’s 1973 ruling in favor of the Dene was later overturned, he had heard evidence sufficient to prompt the Canadian government to negotiate land and resource rights with Dene signatories of Treaty 11.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga – October to November 1923

The treaty was drawn up in Ottawa, and strict instructions were given to Commissioner Conroy that he was not to deviate from the written text of the treaty, perhaps in the wake of reports that oral promises beyond the bounds of the text of Treaty 8 had been made with the Dene’s Chipewayan and Cree neighbors to the south twenty years earlier. The treaty instructed that it should be signed by chiefs and headmen chosen by the Indians to do so on their behalf. Its key provision was that, by signing, the Dene “cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada . . . forever, all their rights, titles, and privileges to the lands included within the following limits. . . .” It then described the bounds of the more than 370,000 square miles of Dene territory constituting the Mackenzie valley area of the Northwest Territories. By signing, they also agreed to abide by Canada’s laws and to keep relations of peace and goodwill with Canada. In return, the Dene could continue to hunt, fish, and trap in the territory surrendered, and reserves were to be set aside for their exclusive use. A cash annuity of five dollars would also be provided to each treaty Indian in perpetuity. Notably, there was no provision that this amount might be adjusted in accordance with inflation through time. Onetime gifts of tools, money, and clothing were made at the time of signing, and specific equipment, such as net twine and ammunition for hunters and trappers, was to be provided annually. In addition, the treaty promised assistance for those Dene wishing to pursue agriculture—a highly dubious benefit, given that the Arctic climate is highly unsuitable for agricultural pursuits. The most significant provision is perhaps the promise of the salaries of teachers to be paid by Canada, which, as a result of legal principles established since the 1970s requiring treaties to be interpreted liberally, is currently understood as significant educational benefits for treaty Indians. Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox See also Aboriginal Title; Canadian Indian Treaties; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Right of Conquest. References and Further Reading Daugherty, W. E. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty Three. Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fumoleau, Rene. 1973. As Long as This Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870–1939. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

www.abc-clio.com

393

Morris, Alexander. 1991. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories including The Negotiations on which they were based (First Printing 1880), reprint by Fifth House Publishers, Saskatoon, SK. See Chapter 5, “Treaty Number Three or the Northwest Angle Treaty,” pp. 44–76, pp. 320–329.

Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga October to November 1923 The Mississauga and Chippewa treaties of 1923 are commonly referred as the Williams Treaties. The Williams Treaties are unique, for they involve two treaties covering the same area. Signatories to the Williams Treaties are the Mississauga of Scugog Lake, Mississauga of Alderville, Mississauga of Hiawatha, and Mississauga of Curve Lake; and the Chippewa of Georgina Island, Chippewa of Christian Island, and Chippewa of Rama. Of historical significance, the Mississauga and Chippewa had surrendered most of their lands by 1818, 1819, and 1822. These former eighteenthcentury treaties represent most of the Mississauga and Chippewa territory below the 45th parallel. The largest portion of Mississauga and Chippewa hunting territory was north of the 45th parallel and had remained not covered by a treaty until 1923. The Williams Treaties are made up of two documents, a treaty and an attached memorandum of agreement. The memorandum of agreement was negotiated between the Province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada in April 1923. The memorandum of agreement outlined the federal and provincial shared understanding that the Mississauga and Chippewa lay claim to 10,719 square miles or 6,400,000 acres north of the 45th parallel. The memorandum of agreement had seven clauses that contained the appointment, financing, and powers of the treaty commission. Clauses one to three dealt with the appointment, selection, and commission question of validity. Clauses four and five outlined the commission’s expenses, to be covered by the federal government, and treaty payment by province. Clause six dealt with the issue of reserve lands; the province agreed to provide lands for reserves. Lastly, clause seven is the extinction clause: all lands and monies were to be held and administered for the Mississauga and Chippewa

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

394

Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga – October to November 1923

Native Americans of the Ojibwa tribe (also known as Chippewa) paddle a hand-made canoe c. 1913. The lightweight construction and shallow draft of the canoe made it an ideal craft for navigating the lakes and small rivers of North America. (Library of Congress)

until they are extinct, at which time the lands and monies will be returned to their rightful owner— according to the memorandum of agreement, the province of Ontario. It is significant that Section 91.24 of the Constitution Act of 1867 had given the federal government legislative control over Indian lands; further, Section 109 stated that “all lands,” once surrendered, belonged to the province in which they were located. The federal government had the responsibility to enter into treaties with Indians but could not establish a reserve once a treaty had been signed. In effect, then, the province must loan some of its land to the federal government to create a reserve in the event a treaty is negotiated. Unlike former Mississauga and Chippewa treaties, the Williams Treaties extinguished not only land rights but also the Native rights to hunt and fish on ceded lands. The treaty has three lands clauses: Clause one describes 17,600 square miles, mostly above the 45th parallel. The second clause

www.abc-clio.com

includes land below the 45th parallel, describing 2,500 square miles. A third clause, commonly referred to as the “basket clause,” surrenders “all other lands . . . to which they ever had, now have, or now claim to have as theirs. . . .” A further clause explains that the treaty is subject to the attached memorandum of agreement. The final version of the Williams Treaties described lands north and south of the 45th parallel. The treaty terms extinguished rights to hunting and fishing to 20,100 square miles. However, the Mississauga and Chippewa had hired lawyers to protect their hunting and fishing rights, and the memorandum of agreement authorized only a treaty for 10,719 square miles. The terms described in the Williams Treaties were confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1994, despite obvious contradictions. Daniel Edward Shaule

ABC-CLIO

See also Canadian Indian Treaties.

1-800-368-6868

James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – November 11, 1975

References and Further Reading Daniels, Richard. 1980. A History of Native Claims Processes in Canada 1867–1979. Prepared for the Research Branch, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, February. Johnson, Ian. 1985. 1923 Historical Narrative of the Williams Treaties. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs Historical Centre. Also available from any Williams Treaties of 1923 First Nations. Johnson, Leo. 1973. History of the County of Ontario 1615–1875. Whitby, ON: Corporation of the County of Ontario, Chapter 2. Surtees, Robert. 1986. The Williams Treaties. Treaty and Historical Research Report. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs.

James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement November 11, 1975 The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) was signed on November 11, 1975, by the government of Quebec, the Grand Council of the

395

Cree (Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the James Bay Development Corporation, the Quebec HydroElectric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), and the government of Canada. It came into effect in 1977. It is often referred to as the first “modern treaty” in Canada under the federal government’s 1973 extinguishment policy, whereby existing aboriginal title to ancestral lands is extinguished in return for specified rights and interests in treaties between aboriginal peoples and the provincial and federal governments of Canada. The territory covered by the agreement represents 69 percent of the province of Quebec, extending from the 48th parallel to the 62nd parallel north. The 55th parallel demarcates the territory between the Cree in the south and the Inuit in the north. The JBNQA is the first comprehensive land claims settlement negotiated while development of the hydroelectric project, La Grande, was taking place on Cree lands. The Cree had initially sought and won an injunction from the Quebec Superior Court to stop the project. However, the Quebec

George Manuel (from left), president of the National Indian Brotherhood; Aurilien Gill, third vice president of the Association of Indians, and Chief Max Louis, second vice president of the Association of Indians, speak in November 1974 at a news conference discussing the agreement between the James Bay Cree and the Quebec government. The agreement was finalized in 1975 and was the first treaty in the modern Canadian treaty period. (Bettmann/Corbis)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

396

James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – November 11, 1975

Court of Appeal overturned the decision. It held that, although the La Grande project would affect Cree interests and rights in land, these could be remedied or compensated. Faced with continuation of the project, the Cree decided to negotiate a settlement to secure certain rights and limit future plans for hydroelectric projects. Under the JBNQA, both the provincial and federal governments have obligations toward the Cree; the province has jurisdiction over land-related Cree rights, and the federal government has a general fiduciary duty to protect aboriginal rights and interests. The JBNQA does not recognize the right of selfgovernment for the Cree or Inuit, but it does allow them greater control over their lives and affairs. They have rights to land use and access and to the establishment of political organs with powers over education, social services, health, business, and land management. Rights to land are divided into three land categories: Category I lands are for the exclusive use and benefit of Cree and Inuit; Category II lands allow Cree and Inuit the exclusive right to hunt, fish, and trap; and Category III lands are for general public access, but Cree and Inuit retain harvesting rights. Among the political organs established to administer the territory are the Cree Regional Authority and the Kativik Regional Government. A number of other institutions were established giving Cree and Inuit decision-making powers over education, social services, health, justice, and public security. In relation to preserving aboriginal languages, the JBNQA strengthens formal instruction in Cree and Inuktitut through the establishment of the Cree and Kativik school boards. The provincial and federal governments have obligations to finance building the territory’s infrastructure and political organs. One key feature of the JBNQA is the surrender and extinguishment clause (Article 2.1), under which all Cree and Inuit claims, rights, titles, and interests in land are surrendered and extinguished in exchange for specified rights, privileges, and benefits in the JBNQA (Article 2.2). Surrender and extinguishment clauses have since been used in other comprehensive land claims settlements, with some criticism from aboriginal communities, who point to the historical nature of their claims and rights to land. They argue that, by requiring rights to be defined in agreements, the historical connection between aboriginal peoples and the land is diminished, as well as the historical relations

www.abc-clio.com

between aboriginal and nonaboriginal peoples that forms the basis of aboriginal rights today. From the provincial and federal governments’ point of view, surrender and extinguishment clauses guarantee legal certainty of rights and duties for aboriginal communities as well as the state and, overall, agreements with these clauses represent an enlightened policy of negotiation rather than litigation of aboriginal rights. In early 2002, the government of Quebec reached a new agreement, La Paix des Braves (Peace of the Braves), with the Cree Indians. This agreement represents a new phase in Cree-Quebec relations by emphasizing economic development, governmental access to lands for development purposes, and Cree participation and benefit from development activities. The JBNQA continues to bind both parties subject to the amendments agreed in La Paix des Braves. This means that the government of Quebec continues to fund Cree health, education, income, and security programs, public security, the work of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, and environmental committees. La Paix des Braves establishes what a “nation-to-nation relationship” between the Cree and the Province of Quebec, allowing greater negotiating power for the Cree to discuss directly with governmental departments matters that affect their communities. Principles of consent and consultation are means by which this improved political status is realized. Özlem Ülgen

ABC-CLIO

See also Aboriginal Title; Inuit; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada). References and Further Reading Diamond, Billy. 1990. “Villages of the Damned: The James Bay Agreement Leaves a Trail of Broken Promises.” Artic Circle (Nov/Dec): 24–34. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Complementary Agreements. 1991. Quebec: Les Publications du Quebec. La Paix des Braves. 2002. Moss, Wendy. 1985. “The Implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.” In Aboriginal Peoples and the Law, edited by B. Morse, 684–696. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty-Making in the Spirit of Co-existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.

1-800-368-6868

Northeastern Quebec Agreement – January 31, 1978

Northeastern Quebec Agreement January 31, 1978 The Northeastern Quebec Act (NQA) was signed on January 31, 1978, by the government of Quebec, the Naskapi Indians (Quebec), the Grand Council of the Cree (Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the James Bay Development Corporation, the Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), and the government of Canada. The Naskapi Indians, who inhabit the northeastern part of Quebec, were one of four aboriginal groups who chose not to sign the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) in 1975 and so were excluded from its provisions. After negotiations between the provincial and federal governments, the Naskapi finally ratified the NQA, which amends the JBNQA to the extent that it incorporates provisions relating to the Naskapi Indians. The NQA is a comprehensive land claims settlement based on the JBNQA provisions on land rights and on the establishment of political organs with powers over education, social services, health, business, and land management. Under Article 2.1 of the NQA, all Naskapi claims, rights, titles, and interests in land are surrendered and extinguished in exchange for specified rights, privileges, and benefits specified under the NQA. Specified rights in land fall into two categories. Category 1A-N lands are set aside for the exclusive use and benefit of the Naskapi under the administration, management, and control of the federal government (Article 5.1.2). The Province of Quebec retains full ownership of these lands, including the mineral and subsurface resources. Category 1B-N lands are owned exclusively by a Naskapi private landholding corporation established under Quebec laws (Article 5.1.3). These lands can be sold or ceded only to Quebec. The lands owned by Naskapi constitute a municipality, following the governmental and administrative structure throughout the province of Quebec. Under Article 8.2, the municipality is represented in the Kativik Regional Government, established pursuant to the JBNQA. Lands not owned by Naskapi but set aside for their exclusive use and benefit are governed by a band council (Article 7.1.2). The federal and provincial governments funded development of the area, and under the

www.abc-clio.com

397

NQA the Naskapi Development Corporation was established to administer compensation funds paid by Canada, Quebec, and Hydro-Quebec. Under Article 16.1.1, both the federal and provincial governments paid $6 million in monetary compensation for the surrender and extinguishment of Naskapi existing claims, rights, titles, and interests in Quebec. On lands designated for the exclusive use and occupation by Naskapi, the laws of general application relating to health and social services apply (Article 10.2). A Naskapi Health and Social Services Consultative Committee (“Consultative Committee”) is established to represent Naskapi interests at the Schefferville Hospital Centre, the Community Health Department, and the Social Services Centre (Article 10.3). The Province of Quebec undertakes to consult the Consultative Committee before modifying any program relating to health and social services offered to the Naskapi, and to submit a yearly report about the health and social conditions of the Naskapi community (Article 10.5). The Consultative Committee has the opportunity to make suggestions and recommendations concerning the hiring of health and social services personnel in the Naskapi communities (Article 10.19). Quebec also undertakes to progressively encourage the training of Naskapi health and social services personnel (Article 10.20). In relation to education, a Naskapi school is established on Category 1A-N lands (lands for exclusive use and occupation), and the Naskapi language is taught; one objective is to use French as a teaching language so that pupils graduating from the school will be capable of continuing further studies in French in school, college, or university (Article 11.19). The Naskapi school’s primary objective is kindergarten and elementary education. Where necessary, provision will be made for special courses to Naskapi adults, along with special remedial programs for Naskapi children who have not completed their secondary education (Article 11.14). In relation to policing, special Naskapi constables are appointed, with duties and functions in Category 1A-N lands (Article 13.1.1.). All future developments (including mining operations, energy production, forestry and agriculture, community and municipal services—such as major sewage and water works—and transportation) on land occupied by the Naskapi are subject to an environmental and social impact assessment (Article 14.1.2.2). The Naskapi do not have the power to stop or prevent

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

398

Inuvialuit Final Agreements – June 1984

development activities, but Quebec and Canada are required to consult them prior to authorization of any project (Article 14.1.2.6). The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime under JBNQA applies to the Naskapi too. Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Inuit; James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement–November 11, 1975; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada). References and Further Reading Diamond, Billy. 1990. “Villages of the Damned: The James Bay Agreement Leaves a Trail of Broken Promises.” Artic Circle (Nov/Dec): 24–34. The Northeastern Quebec Agreement. 1984. Ottawa: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Peters, E. 1989. “Federal and Provincial Responsibilities for the Cree, Naskapi and Inuit Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec, and Northeastern Quebec Agreements.” In Aboriginal Peoples and Government Responsibility–Exploring Federal and Provincial Roles, ed. D. Hawkes. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty-Making in the Spirit of Co-existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.

Inuvialuit Final Agreements June 1984 In the early 1970s, the Inuvialuit were faced with oil and gas development in the MacKenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea areas. They decided to pursue a land claim settlement with the Canadian government to acquire control over resource development. Beginning in 1976, the Inuvialuit aggressively lobbied federal officials for negotiations, and eight years later the Inuvialuit Agreements were signed in June 1984. The overall settlement provided the Inuvialuit with surface ownership rights to nearly 91,000 square kilometers of land as well as limited subsurface rights to an additional 13,000 square kilometers. A financial component of $152 million was included, as were onetime payments of $10 million to an economic enhancement fund and $7.5 million to a social development fund. The remaining $45 million in financial compensation was paid to the Inuvialuit in annual installments until 1997. The Inuvialuit considered the final settlement a success, and with it

www.abc-clio.com

they gained a previously unknown level of influence within government channels. The Inuvialuit originally signed on as member communities to the Inuit land claim brought forward in the mid-1970s. Reacting to the steady infiltration of non-Native people from the south and the imposition of Canadian social programs, the Inuit and Inuvialuit formed the Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC). The ITC was created to fight for aboriginal rights, to work with government officials to limit large-scale development such as oil exploration and small-scale and local development such as northern tourism. The ITC was also concerned with developing the mechanisms needed to permit Inuit participation in policy formulation, and with the creation of programs and research for dealing with rights to territory and resources, all the while seeking protection and maintenance of traditional land use and harvesting practices. As research was conducted, interest in the claim heightened following the Supreme Court of Canada Calder decision of 1973, which recognized preexisting aboriginal rights and confirmed the existence of a separate system of aboriginal rights. In this instance, aboriginal title arises from the long-term use and continuous occupancy of the land by aboriginal peoples prior to the arrival of European and British colonial powers in North America. In response to Calder, Canadian officials acknowledged the need to create a more flexible policy concerning the recognition of aboriginal rights. In 1974, the federal government implemented a new comprehensive land claims policy that permitted the claimant group to receive defined rights, compensation, and other benefits in exchange for relinquishing rights related to the title claimed over all or part of the land in question. The federal government provided funding to, among others, the ITC to determine the land areas over which they wanted ownership rights. The ITC land claim proposed the creation of a new territory and representative government— unprecedented requests at the time. The ITC’s goal was to resolve the land claim, which called for the Beaufort Sea and Yukon North Slope areas used by the Inuvialuit to be included in the proposed Nunavut Territory, while simultaneously promoting Inuit political development. The proposal was later withdrawn because of its complexity. Inuit factionalism also resulted, and the Inuvialuit split from the ITC in 1976 to negotiate a separate land claim agreement.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Inuvialuit Final Agreements – June 1984

399

Standing on an ice floe at the edge of the city of Iqaluit, an Inuk harnesses his sled dog. Iqaluit is the capital city of the Nunavut Territory. (AP/Wide World Photos)

In 1977, the Committee of Original Peoples’ Entitlement, which represented 4,500 Inuvialuit in six communities living along or near the mouth of the Mackenzie River, submitted its comprehensive claim with the Canadian government. During the next seven years, negotiations occurred between the Inuit, the Métis, the Inuvialuit, and Canadian officials while the Nunavut claim was still under negotiations. The Inuvialuit Final Agreements were signed in 1984. Whether or not the split was a positive move, intense pressure from impending economic development initiatives led the Inuvialuit to settle the first comprehensive land claim settlement in the Northwest Territories with the government of Canada. That same year, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation was formed to receive the lands and financial

www.abc-clio.com

compensation obtained by the Inuvialuit. The corporation was assigned the responsibility for managing the settlement, the objectives according to the 1997 annual report of the Inuvialuit Corporate Group being to “[p]reserve the Inuvialuit culture, identity and values within a changing northern society. Enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society. Protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity.” To date, the Inuvialuit have secured a sizable land base, which they control, and they share in the management of resources on Crown lands throughout the entire region covered by the agreement. Further, the Inuvialuit have experienced the positive impacts that come with the protection of adequate lands, resources, and political power. The settlement

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

400

Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement – April 1992

has enabled the Inuvialuit to build their own communities and expand their economic interests beyond the region and settlement area. Yale D. Belanger See also Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973; Inuit. References and Further Reading Anderson, B., B. Kayseas, L. P. Dana, and K. Hindle. 2004. “Indigenous Land Claims and Economic Development: The Canadian Experience.” American Indian Quarterly, 28(3–4): 634–648. Frideres, J. 1998. Native People in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall. Inuvialuit Corporate Group. 1997. Inuvialuit Corporate Group: 1996 Annual Report. Inuvik, NT: Inuvialuit Corporate Group.

A caribou bull stands alert on the Alaskan tundra. Caribou are found in North America, Russia, and Scandinavia. In Europe they are called reindeer, but in North America only the domestic form of caribou are called reindeer. (Corel)

Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement April 1992 In Canada, indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands and resources are clarified through negotiated agreements with Canada. Generally, indigenous peoples are required to negotiate rights in accordance with the Canadian Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (1986). The policy’s most significant feature is that indigenous peoples must surrender undefined aboriginal rights and title in exchange for defined rights and ownership of lands and resources. Known as extinguishment, wherein indigenous peoples are required to agree to “extinguish” all their aboriginal rights, in recent years this policy has been replaced by a more politically palatable term, certainty. Essentially, it is the same concept repackaged in less hostile terminology. The Gwich’in, or People of the Caribou, were signatories of Treaty 11 in 1921. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1980s and 1990s, they attempted to negotiate land and resource rights with Canada as a member of the Dene Nation, along with the Tli Cho, Deh Cho, Akaitcho, and Sahtu peoples. Faced with massive resource development pressures in their traditional territories compounded by a lands and resources agreement reached with the Inuvialuit neighbors, the Gwich’in chose to pursue their own agreement following watershed political events within the Dene Nation in 1990. In 1992, the Gwich’in formalized the Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement with Canada.

www.abc-clio.com

There are approximately twenty-three hundred Gwich’in beneficiaries, descendants of the original Northern Athapaskan inhabitants. Distinct bands include the Teetl’it Gwich’in of Fort McPherson, the Gwich’ya Gwich’in of Tsiigehtchic, and the Nihtat Gwich’in located in Inuvik, the region’s regional centre. The agreement applies to Gwich’in people who have traditionally occupied an area within what is now the northwestern corner of Canada’s Northwest Territories. The Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA) covers fifty-seven thousand square kilometers in the Northwest Territory and a primary use area in the Yukon. The Gwich’in is part of the Gwich’in Nation, which spans Canada’s Northwest and Yukon Territories in Canada and Alaska in the United States. The lands of the Gwich’in are rich in flora and fauna and in oil and gas resources. They have been sustained for millennia by the Porcupine caribou herd (named for the Porcupine River, this herd is one of two in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), which migrates each year through Gwich’in lands to calve in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which the Gwich’in have mounted an international lobby to protect from development. The agreement provided the Gwich’in with rights to lands and resources and guaranteed participation of lands, resources, and water in their traditional territories. They received 22,422 square kilometers throughout their traditional territories. Of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement – May 25, 1993

this, Gwich’in own 6,158 square kilometers of the subsurface, possess mineral rights on 4,299 square kilometers, and own the surface of 1,554 square kilometers of their traditional territories in the Yukon. The land in the Yukon is known as Teetlit Gwich’in land, a traditional use area of Gwich’in now based largely in the community of Fort McPherson. The Gwich’in also received cash compensation in return for surrendering their claim to much of their traditional territory and ceding it to Canada. The Gwich’in received $75 million (1990 Canadian dollars) over a fifteen-year period. As part of the settlement, Gwich’in is provided a small portion of total resource royalties flowing from development activity in the Mackenzie valley. Within their settlement region, Gwich’in have extensive wildlife harvesting rights, as well as guaranteed participation in decision-making bodies established for the management of wildlife and regulatory bodies for land, water, and the environment. These bodies include the Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board, the Gwich’in Land and Water Board, and the Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board. Each of these is a public decision-making institution with authority in the settlement area. Gwich’in are represented on the Northwest Territory’s Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, which has authority to review the environmental impacts of development in the territory and to make recommendations on how projects may proceed. Gwich’in also have the rights of first refusal for some commercial wildlife activities in their settlement area. Compensation from the land claim has allowed the Gwich’in to invest for the future. A Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute has been established, which conducts archaeological, oral history, and traditional knowledge research in the GSA. Educational and cultural programs, such as postsecondary scholarships, training programs, and language and culture camps for youth, have also been established. Although the Gwich’in were required to extinguish their aboriginal rights as part of the agreement, treaty rights not specifically given up, such as education and treaty payments, continue to exist. Rights given up include treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap in the settlement area and other parts of the Northwest Territory, the Yukon, and Nunavut covered by Treaty 11. Hunting, fishing, and trapping treaty rights in the Mackenzie valley will continue until other resident Dene/Métis groups negotiate agreements. Despite this, the

www.abc-clio.com

401

agreement states that nothing in it removes the Gwich’in identity as aboriginal peoples or affects any existing or future constitutional rights for them as aboriginal people. The agreement recognizes the Gwich’in Tribal Council and community-based Gwich’in organizations as the institutions responsible for implementing the land claim provisions. These political bodies make decisions and administer responsibilities of the agreement within the communities. At the same time, band councils recognized under the Indian Act continue to exercise decision-making authority on local governmental matters specific to the lives of their members. The agreement obligates the federal government to negotiate self-government with the Gwich’in, under which band councils will be replaced by governments recognized through the self-government agreement rather than the Indian Act. Currently, the Gwich’in are negotiating a joint self-government agreement with their Inuvialuit neighbors. Stephanie Irlbacher Fox See also Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to August 30, 1921; Modern Treaties/ Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada); Treaty. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement May 25, 1993 Events leading to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement began in the 1970s, when the Inuit started to establish political organizations, such as the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC), in an attempt to regain the autonomy over their day-to-day lives that had been lost to the federal government. In 1973, the ITC initiated a study of Inuit land use and occupancy in order to demonstrate the extent of Inuit aboriginal title in the Arctic. In 1976, the ITC asked the Canadian government to map out a boundary between the eastern and western regions of the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

402

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement – May 25, 1993

Canadian governor general Romeo LeBlanc (center) looks on as the flag of Nunavut is unveiled at the official ceremony to inaugurate Nunavut in Iqaluit, Nunavut, on April 1, 1999. (Tom Hanson/AFP/Getty Images)

Northwest Territories. The ITC proposed the creation of Nunavut out of the eastern region of the Northwest Territories because of Inuit land claims in that area. Throughout the 1980s, the Inuit, as represented by the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN), engaged in land claims negotiations with the government of Canada. The interests of the government of the Northwest Territories were represented at the negotiating table by the government of Canada. In 1990, the parties reached a settlement, which eventually resulted in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In 1992, the Inuit approved the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and in 1993 the government of Canada passed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, which confirmed that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is a treaty within the meaning of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement represents the largest indigenous land claim settlement in Canadian history. The objectives of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are as follows:

www.abc-clio.com

[To] provide for certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of lands and resources, and of rights for Inuit to participate in decision making concerning the use, management, and conservation of land, water, and resources, including the offshore; provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to participate in decision making concerning wildlife harvesting; provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities; and encourage selfreliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit. (Preamble, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 1993). The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement gives the Inuit ownership of more than 350,000 square kilometers (136,000 square miles) of land in the eastern Arctic, of which 36,000 square kilometers (14,000 square miles) includes subsurface mineral rights. It also calls for the creation of several national parks in the settlement area. In return, the Inuit agree to cede, release, and surrender all their aboriginal claims,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement – May 29, 1993

rights, title, and interests, to lands and waters anywhere within Canada and adjacent offshore areas within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Canada, and agree not to assert any further legal claims based on these interests. Disputes about any matter concerning the interpretation, application, or implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are to be resolved by an arbitration board, by whose decision the parties agree to be bound. A decision of the arbitration board is subject to review by a court. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement provides the Inuit with more than $1.148 billion (Canadian dollars) in financial compensation over fourteen years. It guarantees Inuit participation in decision making with respect to lands and resources in the settlement area by mandating Inuit representation on wildlife management, resource management, and environmental boards. It requires the government of Canada to share with the Inuit royalties from resources produced on lands in the settlement area to which the Crown holds legal title. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement also commits the parties to work together to increase Inuit participation in government employment to a representative level. A Training Trust Fund of $13 million (Canadian dollars) is established to ensure that the Inuit have the skills necessary to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In 1993, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) was set up as a private corporation to promote Inuit economic, social, and cultural well-being through the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Most important, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement stipulates that the parties work together to found a new territory called Nunavut, with its own public government separate from the government of the Northwest Territories. In this regard, a political accord was reached in October 1992. In April 1999, the Northwest Territories was divided in two, creating Nunavut. Nunavut means “our land” in Inuktitut, the Inuit language. Ritu Gambhir See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Inuit; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements (Canada); Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen.

www.abc-clio.com

403

Borrows, J. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,” 22 American Indian Law Review 37. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. 2004. A Plain Language Guide to Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Nunavut, Canada: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement May 29, 1993 This is one of four final agreements signed on May 29, 1993, as part of the Yukon land claims settlement process. These agreements were made in accordance with the Umbrella Final Agreement (also signed that day), which allowed each Yukon First Nation to pursue treaty settlements with the governments of Canada and the Yukon Territory. The Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement was the first step toward selfgovernment taken by the First Nation of the Nacho Nyak Dun. The agreement was signed by the Nacho Nyak Dun, the government of Canada, and the government of Yukon, to take effect in 1995. The Nacho Nyak Dun are the northernmost representatives of the Northern Tutchone language and culture. The traditional territory of the Nacho Nyak Dun (also spelled Na-cho Nyak Dun) is located in northeastern Yukon Territory on the border shared with the Northwest Territories. The territory overlaps with that of several other Yukon First Nations: the Tetlit Gwitchin and the Vuntut Gwitchin to the north, the Trondek Hwech’in to the west, and the Selkirk and the Kaska Dena to the south. Similarly to other First Nations in the Yukon, this territory of the Nacho Nyak Dun was included within Canadian borders in 1870, when Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territory were purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company. Despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which directed the negotiation of treaties with aboriginals, no treaties were ever signed between the Nacho Nyak Dun and the governments of Great Britain or Canada. Nor were any attempts made to protect the rights of the Nacho Nyak Dun when gold was discovered on the Stewart River in 1883. The town of Mayo was established in 1903, and the settlement of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

404

Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement – May 29, 1993

Lansing soon followed. The Department of Indian Affairs began providing assistance to the Nacho Nyak Dun in the 1920s, but it was not until the 1950s that the Mayo Indian band was organized. In the 1980s, the Mayo Indians renamed themselves the Nacho Nyak Dun, and the band returned to its traditional forms of government. With the resolution of the Yukon land claims process, the Nacho Nyak Dun were able to pursue self-government. The final agreement follows the template set by the Umbrella Final Agreement and affirms the rights and benefits of the Nacho Nyak Dun within their own territory. Approximately 1,830 square miles were allocated to the First Nation, with the town of Mayo designated as the administrative center. The agreement also set parameters for a number of issues, including resource use, management of heritage resources, and protection of burial sites. The Yukon and Canadian governments cannot act arbitrarily within Nacho Nyak Dun boundaries. Before any action is taken, the First Nation must be consulted. Generally, the agreement focuses on cooperation between the Nacho Nyak Dun and the two governments. All parties recognized that some resources, such as water systems and wildlife, could not belong solely to one party. The agreement therefore allowed the establishment of Special Management Areas, such as the McArthur Wildlife Sanctuary and the Peel Watershed, as areas of mutual interest and cooperation. The agreement also addressed the issue of financial compensation, granting the First Nation $14,544,654 in payments over fifteen years. The Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement facilitated the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun SelfGovernment Agreement (also signed May 29, 1993), which, once ratified, transformed the Nacho Nyak Dun from a band under the administration of the Indian Act (1985) to a self-governing First Nation. The population of the First Nation was 434 people in 1997. Elizabeth Sneyd

See also Royal Proclamation of 1763; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.

www.abc-clio.com

Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. “First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement between the Government of Canada, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun and the Government of the Yukon.” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993. “The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun SelfGovernment Agreement among the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun and the Government of Canada and the Government of the Yukon,” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993. “Umbrella Final Agreement Between The Government Of Canada, The Council For Yukon Indians And The Government Of The Yukon,” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993.

Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement May 29, 1993 This is one of four final agreements signed on May 29, 1993, as part of the Yukon land claims settlement process. These agreements were made in accordance with the Umbrella Final Agreement (also signed that day), which allowed each Yukon First Nation to pursue treaty settlements with the government of Canada and the government of Yukon Territory. The Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement was the first step taken by the Vuntut Gwitchin toward self-government. The agreement was signed between the Vuntut Gwitchin people, the government of Canada, and the government of the Yukon, to take effect in 1995. The Vuntut Gwitchin, also known as Old Crow, inhabit the northernmost part of Yukon Territory. Their traditional lands overlap with the Tetlit Gwitchin and the Nacho Nyak Dun to the southeast and the Trondek Hwech’in to the south. The main settlement, Old Crow, is located at the Crow and Porcupine rivers. It is accessible only by air or water and is the northernmost community in the Yukon Territory. The traditional means of survival is hunting caribou and muskrat. Despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which directed the negotiation of treaties with aboriginals, there were never any treaties signed between the Vuntut Gwitchin and the governments of Great Britain or Canada. Unlike other First Nations, such as the Nacho Nyak Dun, the isolation of the Vuntut

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement – September 6, 1993

Gwitchin meant that they were relatively untouched by the influx of European Canadians during the gold rush and afterward, with the exception of a smallpox epidemic in 1911. Like other Yukon First Nations, however, the Vuntut Gwitchin were actively involved in the Yukon land claims process from its start in 1973. The final agreement used the framework laid out in the Umbrella Final Agreement to affirm the rights and benefits of the Vuntut Gwitchin. The agreement allotted approximately 2,990 square miles of territory to the Vuntut Gwitchin. The agreement also granted the First Nation $19,161,859 in payments over fifteen years. Like other final agreements, the Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement addressed a number of important issues, from membership in the First Nation to land use to resource management. The final agreement affirmed that the territorial and Canadian governments had to consult with the First Nation’s council prior to any action taken within Vuntut Gwitchin boundaries. There was also, however, an emphasis on cooperation between the different governments, particularly when dealing with nonstatic resources such as wildlife or waterways. One aspect of the Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement sets it apart from the other final agreements: the confirmation of the establishment of Vuntut National Park in the northwest sector of the Vuntut Gwitchin territory. Although identified in the agreement as a Special Management Area along with the Old Crow Flats Area, the proposed park had to be dealt with in a different manner, since national parks are administered by the Canadian government under the National Parks Act. The signatory parties agreed that the park would remain under Canadian control but that any changes to park boundaries would be subject to consultation with the First Nation. Further, a large part of the park’s mandate focused on the recognition of the history, culture, and heritage of the Vuntut Gwitchin. As a result of these negotiations, Vuntut National Park was officially created in 1995. The Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement also facilitated the Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government Agreement (also signed May 29, 1993), which, once ratified, transformed the Vuntut Gwitchin from a band under the administration of the Indian Act (1985) to a self-governing First Nation. The population of the First Nation was 756 in 2004. Elizabeth Sneyd

www.abc-clio.com

405

See also Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Indian Act of Canada, 1876; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Land. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. “Umbrella Final Agreement Between The Government Of Canada, The Council For Yukon Indians And The Government Of The Yukon.” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993. “Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and the Government of the Yukon.” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993. “Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Self-Government Agreement among the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and the Government of Canada and the Government of the Yukon.” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993.

Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement September 6, 1993 The Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement was signed on September 6, 1993, and represents one of the “modern treaties” negotiated under the Canadian government’s Comprehensive Land Claim Policy. It is constitutionally protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 3.1.1). This agreement concerns five Dene and Métis communities in the Northwest Territories, Canada: Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman, Deline (Fort Franklin) and Norman Wells (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 2.1.1). The benefits and terms of the agreement affect a settlement area of approximately 108,200 square miles (280,238 square kilometers) (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Two categories of lands were created by the agreement: settlement lands and Sahtu municipal lands (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 2.1.1).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

406

Nisga’a Final Agreement – April 27, 1999

The settlement lands constitute approximately 16,000 square miles (41,437 square kilometers) within the settlement area to which the Sahtu Dene and Métis acquired title (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 19.1.2). This includes title to the subsurface resources over a 700-square-mile area (1,813 square kilometers) (Highlights, at p. 1; Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 22). Title to the lands is transferred to the Sahtu Dene and Métis collectively, however; the lands are not “reserves” as defined under the Indian Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5; see also Agreement, Vol. 1, § 3.1.8). Hunting and fishing rights as well as exclusive trapping rights for the Sahtu Dene and Métis are preserved over the entire settlement area (and not solely on the lands to which title is held by the Sahtu Dene and Métis (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 13). The settlement lands are protected so that they may never be lost to the Sahtu Dene and Métis. These lands cannot be sold, mortgaged, or seized under court order (Agreement, Vol.1, § 19.1.7 and § 19.1.8). Unimproved settlement lands are not subject to real property taxes (Agreement, Vol.1, § 11.5). The settlement lands are generally protected from expropriation. However, in the event that any of the lands are ever expropriated, the Canadian government guarantees that it will replace the lands so that the initial size of the settlement lands is never reduced (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 24.1.5). The Sahtu municipal lands, while also held by the Sahtu Dene and Métis collectively, are afforded a status different from that of the settlement lands (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 23). The municipal lands are like any other privately owned municipal lands and may be sold or mortgaged and cease to be Sahtu lands (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 23.2.1). Sahtu municipal lands that are developed will be subject to real estate taxation (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 23.4.2). The agreement also provides that the Sahtu Dene and Métis will receive a settlement payment of $75 million over a period of fifteen years (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 8.1.1 and Schedule I to Ch. 8), as well as receiving a portion of the resource royalties received by the Canadian government and stemming from the Mackenzie valley area (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 10). The participation of the Sahtu Dene and Métis in the management, development, and regulation of the settlement area is guaranteed by the terms of the agreement in such fields as renewable resources (Agreement, Vol. 1, Chs. 13–15), environmental impact assessment (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 17), and the regulation of land and water use (Agreement, Vol. 1, Chs. 20 and 25).

www.abc-clio.com

Although federal, provincial, and territorial laws continue to apply on Sahtu Dene and Métis lands, the terms of the agreement will be given priority where a conflict of laws arises. Whereas this agreement concerns land, resources, and compensation, the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement does provide for the future negotiation of a self-government agreement between the Sahtu Dene and Métis and the federal and provincial governments (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 5). Lysane Cree See also Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to August 30, 1921; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements (Canada); August 30, 1921. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morse, Bradford, ed. 1985. Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: Indian, Métis and Inuit Rights in Canada. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Nisga’a Final Agreement April 27, 1999 The Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA) has three parties: the Nisga’a First Nation, the Province of British Columbia, and the government of Canada. The Nisga’a First Nation and the Province of British Columbia signed the NFA on April 27, 1999, and the government of Canada signed on May 4, 1999. For the terms of the NFA to take effect, it must be ratified by Canada; as of this writing, ratification has yet to take place. The NFA is the culmination of Nisga’a land claims, which began in 1887, when the first request for settlement of claims was made to the provincial government and litigated before the Supreme Court of Canada (Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia [1973] 1 S.C.R. 313). It is the first “modern treaty” between British Columbia and a First Nation and the first comprehensive land claims settlement in Canada to incorporate the constitutionally protected aboriginal right of self-government. It is full and final settlement of all aboriginal rights and aboriginal title of the Nisga’a Nation.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Nisga’a Final Agreement – April 27, 1999

The NFA contains twenty-two chapters dealing with such matters as lands, forest resources, access to lands, roads and rights-of-way, fisheries, wildlife and migratory birds, environmental assessment and protection, the Nisga’a government and constitution, administration of justice, the Indian Act, capital transfer and negotiation, loan repayment, fiscal relations, taxation, cultural artifacts and heritage, local and regional government relations, and dispute resolution. The NFA designates and recognizes Nisga’a aboriginal title to 2,000 square kilometers of land in British Columbia, as well as control and ownership of all mineral resources on or under Nisga’a land. The Nisga’a own the land in fee simple, which is the largest form of proprietary right in land without restrictions or conditions. It allows for immediate use and enjoyment of the land and the right to sell or dispose of it according to Nisga’a needs and interests. There are no restrictions on the Nisga’a choosing to sell the land to a third party or to allow development activities, subject to Nisga’a governmental approval (Chapter 3, Articles 3, 4, and 19). The NFA recognizes Nisga’a right of selfgovernment and provides for establishment of a Nisga’a government, which is to be democratically elected and accountable to Nisga’a citizens, with a constitution (Chapter 11, Articles 1 and 9). The Nisga’a have the right to practice their culture and use their own language (Chapter 2, Article 7), and the Constitution of the Nisga’a Nation (2000) stipulates that the official languages of the Nisga’a government are Nisga’a and English. The government must respect and encourage the use of the Nisga’a language and the practice of Nisga’a culture, including honoring the tradition of ancestors, traditional laws, and the wisdom of elders (Constitution, Chapter 1, Articles 2 and 4). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga’a government in respect of all matters within its authority “bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of the Nisga’a Government” (Constitution, Chapter 1 Article 6[2]). The Constitution is the supreme law of the Nisga’a Nation, subject to the Canadian Constitution and the NFA.

www.abc-clio.com

407

The government has primary law-making authority in the following areas: the administration of government, management of lands and assets, Nisga’a citizenship, and Nisga’a language and culture. The government has contingent law-making authority, whereby any Nisga’a law must conform to federal and provincial standards in order to be valid, in the following areas: education, child and family services, adoption, Nisga’a fisheries and wildlife harvesting, and forestry (NFA, Chapter 11). Individuals who reside on Nisga’a lands but are not Nisga’a citizens are consulted about decisions that directly and significantly affect them (NFA, Chapter 11, Article 19). The NFA recognizes that the jurisdiction and authority of the Nisga’a government will evolve over time (NFA, Chapter 11, Article 4), including the eventual establishment of a Nisga’a court that may apply “traditional Nisga’a methods and values, such as using Nisga’a elders to assist in adjudicating and sentencing, and emphasizing restitution” (NFA, Chapter 12, Article 41[d]). There is a three-stage dispute resolution mechanism under NFA. The first stage involves collaborative negotiations between parties. The next stage applies to specific disputes and involves mediation, a technical advisory panel, impartial legal advice, and an elders’ advisory panel. The final stage involves settlement of the dispute under binding arbitration or judicial proceedings (NFA, Chapter 19). Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada). References and Further Reading Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia. 1973. 1 S.C.R. 313. Constitution of the Nisga’a Nation. 2000. (May). McNeil, K. 1998. “Defining Aboriginal Title in the 90’s: Has the Supreme Court Finally Got It Right?” Twelfth Annual Roberts Lecture, March 25, York University, Toronto, ON. McNeil, K. 2001–2002. “Extinguishment of Aboriginal Title in Canada: Treaties, Legislation and Judicial Discretion,” 33 Ottawa Law Review 301. Nisga’a Final Agreement. 1999. (April).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Important Treaty Sites Camp Stevens (Walla Walla), Washington Camp Stevens in the Walla Walla valley became the grounds for the Walla Walla Council, where treaties were made by Isaac Stevens, first territorial governor of Washington State, and signed with the tribes who owned lands east of the Cascades. This place in the Walla Walla valley was chosen by Kamaiakan, chief of the Yakimas, who said, “There is the place where in ancient times we held our councils with neighboring tribes, and we will hold it there now” (Stevens 1900, 27; Josephy 1965, 314). Camp Stevens was on the right bank of Mill Creek, which was a tributary of the Walla Walla River, and six miles north of the Whitman Mission. Colonel Kip Lawrence, who kept a daily account of the Walla Walla Council in his journal, wrote, “It was in one of the most beautiful spots of the Walla Walla Valley, well wooded (in a cotton grove) and with plenty of water. Ten miles distant is seen the range of the Blue Mountains, forming the southeast boundary of the Great Plains along the Columbia, whose waters it divides from those of the Lewis River. It stretches away along the horizon until it is lost in the dim distance where the mountain chain unites with the Snake River Mountains” (Relander et al. 1955, 11). The council lasted from May 21 to June 11. On May 21, 1855, Governor Isaac Stevens and General Joel Palmer (superintendent for the state of Oregon) arrived on the council grounds (Josephy 1965, 315). In the days that followed, the Nez Perce, Cayuse, Umatilla, Palouse, Walla Walla, and Yakima tribes arrived. A total of five thousand tribe members were in attendance (Relander et al. 1955, 12). Governor Stevens began the council proceedings the day after all the tribes had arrived, only to adjourn shortly thereafter due to rain (Josephy 1965, 318). Stevens eagerly reconvened the council on the following day, May 30, 1855. From May 1 through June 10, Governor Isaac Stevens and General Palmer explained the terms of the treaties, and the chiefs of each tribe spoke their wishes and concerns. The tribes grew uneasy

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

410

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona

as they began to understand what the terms of the treaty meant for them. On June 11, Governor Stevens explained the treaty to Looking Glass, the Nez Perce war chief, who had arrived late. There would be three reservations: The Nez Perce would have their own reservation; the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla would share a reservation; and the Yakima would also share a reservation with the small Columbia River bands. All the tribes signed the treaties, although some were reluctant. The Nez Perce had ceded about 11,000,000 acres and were granted a reservation of approximately 7,694,270 acres. The government took much of this acreage during the gold rush; the Nez Perce fought this in court and obtained compensation for their lost lands (Ruby and Brown 1986, 146). Shortly after the treaty was signed, the Cayuse said that they were unhappy with the reservation because it was too small to be shared with the other tribes. If they were to afford land for farming and grazing their stock, they would need a bigger reservation. This unhappiness was ultimately the cause of the Cayuse War (Ruby and Brown 1986, 210). The Yakima ceded about 10,000,000 acres and were granted less than 1,250,000 acres. Kamaiakan, head chief of the Yakima, instigated the Yakima War of 1855–1856, in which they were defeated. Their treaty was ratified on March 8, 1859 (Ruby and Brown 1986, 274). Rene Casebeer See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Medicine Creek, Washington; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. References and Further Reading Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. 1972. The Cayuse Indians: Imperial Tribesman of Old Oregon. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Relander, Click, D. E. LeCrone, Frederick A. Davidson, and Richard Delaney. 1955. Treaty Centennial 1855–1955 The Yakimas. Yakima, WA: Republic Press. Stevens, Hazard. 1900. The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens by His Son Hazard Stevens. Vol II. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin/Riverside Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Tucked away in the northeast corner of Arizona, Canyon de Chelly serves literally and figuratively as the heart of Diné Bikéyah—Navajo country. This twenty-seven-mile-long canyon and its tributaries (the largest is Canyon del Muerto) are formed by meandering streams that originate in the Chuska Mountains and cut their way westward through the Defiance Plateau, ultimately emptying into Chinle Wash. At points along the route, vertical red walls of sandstone painted with deposits of manganese and iron oxide tower a thousand feet over the canyon floor. Within this sanctuary, the ancestors of the Pueblo, Hopi, and possibly Navajo Indians built multistoried villages on ledges and in alcoves above steep talus slopes. There they remained until the thirteenth century, when, for reasons not entirely clear, the canyon was almost completely abandoned. Although occupied intermittently by migrating Indians of various tribes, Canyon de Chelly remained virtually uninhabited for the next four hundred years. By the eighteenth century, however, continued tensions with neighboring Comanche and Ute tribes, as well as with Spanish settlements along the Rio Grande, prompted Navajo expansion westward. Canyon de Chelly promised safety within its steep and winding walls and fertile bottomlands for the cultivation of crops. By the late eighteenth century, Spanish land grants in Diné Bikéyah brought migrating Hispanic settlers into the area and triggered the renewal of conflict between the two peoples. Navajo raids against the unwanted newcomers and Spanish reprisals escalated until the Spanish determined to establish their authority over the region once and for all. In late 1804, more than three hundred troops commanded by Lieutenant Antonia Narbona left Sonora and headed north with instructions to eliminate Navajo resistance. Bitterly cold weather hindered the operation, but by January 1805, Narbona’s men (augmented by Opata Indians and the New Mexico militia) were poised to enter Canyon de Chelly. The confrontation between the two turned especially tragic as Narbona’s men discovered a group of Navajo women, children, and elders hiding in a cave six hundred feet above the floor of Canyon del Muerto. Unable to scale quickly the talus slope and bare rock below the alcove, the soldiers instead fired their weapons into the cave; their ricocheting bullets killed more than a hundred of the refugees.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona

The assault on “Massacre Cave” lasted for two days, until Narbona’s men penetrated the hideout and captured thirty-three Navajo survivors. Narbona’s expedition failed to bring an end to hostilities in Diné Bikéyah. As Spanish troops left the outer reaches of New Mexico to confront the growing Mexican independence movement further south, Navajo raiding parties resumed their activities against Hispanic migrants and their livestock with little fear of Spanish military reprisal. Counter-raids by local Mexican militia and their Ute and Apache allies only exacerbated the situation. Little changed for the next forty years, until the United States moved to claim the Southwest. At the outset of the war with Mexico in 1846, U.S. troops under the command of Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny occupied Santa Fe, New Mexico, on their way to California. In October that year, Kearny sent Colonel Alexander William Doniphan into Diné Bikéyah to inform the Navajo that they now fell under the authority of the United States and must release all captives and restore stolen property. Doniphan met with mixed

success but nevertheless concluded the first of seven peace treaties negotiated between the Navajo and the United States between 1846 and 1868. For many Navajo, however, Doniphan’s treaty had no validity. In an effort to bring broader compliance to U.S. demands, the army launched military expeditions into Diné Bikéyah, specifically targeting the stronghold of Canyon de Chelly. In September 1847, a battalion under the command of Major Robert Walker invaded the upper reaches of the canyon but encountered few people with whom to treat. Two years later, Colonel John Macrae Washington made a similar foray—this time with some success. The Washington expedition resulted in a treaty, signed on September 9, 1849, and ratified by the Senate a year later, that gave the government the power to establish military posts, agencies, and trading posts in Navajo country. However, the unfortunate death of seven Navajo men, including a respected elder, at the hands of Washington’s men led to continued resistance to the designs of the United States.

Located in the northeast corner of Arizona, Canyon de Chelly is the literal and figurative center of the Navajo culture. (Corel)

www.abc-clio.com

411

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

412

Chicago, Illinois

Between 1850 and 1860, animosity between the Diné and the United States intensified. The U.S. Senate, unwilling to pay Indians or to set aside land for their use, was loath to ratify further treaties with the Navajo. In 1860, an attack by a thousand Navajo warriors against U.S. troops at Fort Defiance in the southern part of Diné Bikéyah nearly succeeded. Accordingly, the commander of the Department of New Mexico, Colonel Edward Richard Sprigg Canby, became increasingly convinced that the best way to handle the problem was to move the Navajos out of their homeland and onto a reservation. Canby’s threatened removal policy resulted in the treaty of 1861, which was signed by forty-nine Navajo leaders, including Manuelito and Barboncito, who had led the attack on Fort Defiance the previous year. Like many of its predecessors, the treaty never passed the Senate. As the American Civil War engulfed the country, Canby’s focus necessarily shifted away from Indian problems and toward the Confederate presence in New Mexico. Following his victory over Confederate forces at Glorieta Pass, Canby was promoted to brigadier general and transferred to Washington, D.C. Command of the Department of New Mexico fell to Brigadier General James Henry Carleton. With the Confederate threat to New Mexico relieved, Carleton returned to the execution of the removal policy articulated by his predecessor. Carleton sought to remove the Navajo (as well as the Mescalero Apache) from Diné Bikéyah and isolated the Indians at Bosque Redondo along the Pecos River. Realizing that the Navajo would not leave of their own accord, Carlton sent soldiers under the command of Christopher Houston “Kit” Carson into Diné Bikéyah to force its inhabitants to depart. Carson recognized that control of Canyon de Chelly was the key to the operation. A brief but devastating campaign in the snow-blanketed canyon in January 1864 proved successful; thousands of Navajos were forced out of their homes, rounded up, and sent first to Fort Wingate, near present-day Gallup, New Mexico, and then on the “Long Walk” to Fort Sumner at the Bosque Redondo. There, after several years of virtual incarceration, the Navajo signed a treaty on June 1, 1868, allowing them to return to a portion of Diné Bikéyah—3,328,302 acres, including most of Canyon de Chelly. Although it would take years and numerous executive-order additions to expand the Diné land base, Canyon de Chelly, the heart of Diné Bikéyah, was back in Navajo hands to stay. Alan C. Downs

www.abc-clio.com

See also Long Walk; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868. References and Further Reading Grant, Campbell. 1978. Canyon de Chelly: Its People and Rock Art. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Simonelli, Jeanne M. 1997. Crossing between Worlds: The Navajos of Canyon de Chelly. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press, School of American Research.

Chicago, Illinois During the historic period, the wet prairie that stretched beyond the banks of the Chicago River was home to a succession of Algonquian-speaking Indians. At the time of the first French explorers, members of the Illinois Confederacy inhabited the area. Later, the Miami, Sac, Ottawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi had villages near the place where the Chicago River entered Lake Michigan. The treaty history of Chicago began at Greenville in 1795. As part of a careful selection of strategic sites in the Old Northwest, General Anthony Wayne forced the cession of “one piece of land six miles square at the mouth of the Chikago river” (Kappler 1904, 40). On this land, the United States established Fort Dearborn in 1803. In 1812, the Potawatomi, who were the dominant Indian group in the Chicago area, took advantage of the outbreak of war between the United States and Great Britain to attack and massacre the soldiers at Fort Dearborn. Not until 1816 was the U.S. Army able to reestablish its foothold in Chicago. That same year, in St. Louis, the government negotiated a land cession by the Ottawa, the Ojibwe, and the Potawatomi, who lived along the southwestern margins of Lake Michigan. In return for twelve years of annuity payments, the bands surrendered their claim to a vital wedge of land ten miles on either side of the Chicago River. The cession included much of the same territory ceded at Greenville and almost all the land that would become the city of Chicago and many of its suburbs. Two treaty councils were held in Chicago, in 1821 and in 1833. In 1821, the agents of the United States turned their attention to the Potawatomi and Ottawa who lived along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. The treaty council was held in Chicago, even though all the lands being ceded were in Michigan. Lewis Cass, governor of the Michigan Territory, obtained the rich croplands between the St. Joseph

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Council Grove, Kansas

and Grand rivers from the Potawatomi in return for annuities ($5,000 for twenty years), blacksmith services, and educational assistance (Kappler 1904, 200). In 1829, when Potawatomi lands in northern Illinois were under pressure from the United States, the negotiation was held not in Chicago but in distant Prairie du Chien in the Wisconsin Territory. A very large section of northwestern Illinois was ceded at this council in return for an annuity of $16,000 and fifty barrels of salt, both to be paid “annually, forever” in Chicago (Kappler 1904, 298). At Tippecanoe, Indiana, in 1832, lands that today include Chicago’s far southern suburbs, as well as a large tract of land along the Indiana-Illinois border, were ceded for a mere $15,000 annuity to be paid for twenty years (Kappler 1904, 354). The 1833 treaty negotiation came on the heels of the Black Hawk War, and although the Potawatomi in Illinois had either remained neutral or rendered positive assistance to the United States during the conflict, sentiment was strong within the state to have all Indians removed west of the Mississippi River. In September 1833, more than six thousand Potawatomi came to Chicago. They were resigned to ceding their last large tract in the Old Northwest, a strip of land along Lake Michigan between Milwaukee and Chicago. A horde of whiskey dealers and horse thieves, “rogues of every description,” descended upon them (Edmunds 1978, 248). More than $20,000 in goods intended for the Potawatomi was stolen by the “rogues” as well as by the good citizens of Chicago (Edmunds 1978, 249). The lead negotiators for the Potawatomi were Billy Caldwell, an Anglo-Irish Mohawk, and Alexander Robinson, a Scot-Ottawa, both of whom were recognized as Potawatomi chiefs. The seedy negotiations came to an end with the Potawatomi ceding their land lands in Illinois and Wisconsin in return for five million acres of new lands along the Missouri River. Large sums were also set aside to fund educational and technical services to the Potawatomi. Caldwell and Robinson were paid off handsomely with large grants of land and personal annuities. The Senate nearly choked on the hefty $175,000 settlement awarded to traders for unpaid debts and the $100,000 to “sundry individuals, in behalf of whom reservations were asked” (Kappler 1904, 402). The most important result of the treaty was the removal of the Potawatomi from Illinois, which began in September 1835. A supplementary article to the 1833 Chicago treaty ended the remaining Potawatomi reservations

www.abc-clio.com

413

in the Michigan Territory. The article made special provision for the Catholic Potawatomi, who eventually were allowed to remain in Cass County, Michigan, on the private reservation of their chief, Leopold Pokagon. Perhaps as many as a third of the Potawatomi rejected the U.S. removal policy and immigrated to Upper Canada, where they settled, among other places, on Manitoulin and Walpole Islands (Clifton 1977, 300–306). Theodore J. Karamanski See also Cass, Lewis; Greenville, Ohio; Pokagun; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833; Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 29, 1821; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Wayne, Anthony. References and Further Reading Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture 1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Treaties, 1778–1883. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Council Grove, Kansas Council Grove, Kansas, is one of the state’s oldest historic communities, having played a part in an important chapter in American Indian treaty history. The community is located in Morris County in east central Kansas, on the Neosho River (Neosho is an Indian word meaning “wet bottoms”). Because of its location on the Santa Fe Trail, Council Grove became an important gathering place for tribes and traders. It was the intention of the U.S. government to foster a safe route along the trail vis-à-vis treaty with Native Americans in the area. The first of these treaties was concluded on August 10, 1825, with the Big and Little Bands of Osage Indians, so that the U.S. government could obtain the right-ofway for a public highway, thus establishing the Santa Fe Trail. The treaty was signed under an oak tree in a large grove of timber on the eastern side of the Neosho River. George C. Sibley, one of three commissioners sent by President John Quincy Adams, named the area Council Grove for the convocation of treaty signers. The other two commissioners were Benjamin Reeves and Thomas Mathers. For

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

414

Dalles, The, Oregon

the right-of-way through their territory, the Osage were paid $800. The commission headed west and six days later met with the Kaw or Kanza Indians to negotiate a treaty. The treaty was signed on August 16, 1825, although not in Council Grove but in McPherson County, Kansas. The treaty was an exact duplicate of the treaty with the Osage. In this treaty, the Kaw Indians gave up their tribal lands of some twenty million acres in northeast Kansas and relocated to a twenty-square-mile reservation near present-day Topeka, Kansas. For the cession of this vast land base, the Kaw were awarded an annuity of $3,500 for twenty years; a quantity of cattle, hogs, and domestic fowl; a blacksmith; and an agricultural instructor. Another treaty with the Kaw in 1846 relocated the tribal members to a twenty-squaremile reservation and encompassed what is now present-day Council Grove. Provisions of this treaty included the sale of their two-million-acre reservation for ten cents an acre; in return, the tribe received an annuity of $8,000 for thirty years; $2,000 for agriculture and education; a gristmill; and 256,000 acres. Manifest Destiny and the desire to open up more lands for expansion led to yet another treaty with the Kaw. A treaty signed in 1859 pushed the reservation slightly south of Council Grove from Kaw lands and gave the tribe only 80,000 of the poorest acres in the area, to be divided into forty-acre plots for each family. The remaining 176,000 of the 256,000 acres were held in trust by the U.S. government, to be sold to the highest bidder. Finally, on May 27, 1872, the starving Kaw (for whom the state of Kansas is named) were relocated to Oklahoma. The Kaw were relocated and their lands diminished so often in such a short time that Kaw Chief Al-le-ga-wa-ho pleaded to Secretary of the Interior Colombus Delano, “Great Father, you Whites treat us Kan-zey like a flock of turkeys, you chase us to one stream, then you chase us to another stream, soon you will chase us over the mountains and into the ocean” (“Collision” 2003, para. 20). By the Neosho River, a stump portion of the Council Oak still remains, protected by a shelter. Before it was blown over by a storm in 1958, the tree was seventy feet tall, and its trunk was sixteen feet around. In the area are fifteen more state and federal historic properties, including the Council Grove Historic District and the Kaw Methodist Mission. Kurt T. Mantonya

www.abc-clio.com

See also Treaty with the Great and Little Osage–August 10, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa–August 16, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe–January 14, 1846; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe–October 5, 1859. References and Further Reading Brigham, Lalla Maloy. 1921. The Story of Council Grove on the Santa Fe Trail. Topeka: Kansas State Historical Society. “Collision–Lethal Contact.” 2003. Kaw Mission State Historic Site. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://ww.kshs.org/places/kawmision/ lethalkanzareservations.htm. Rollings, Willard H. 1995. The Osage: An Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the PrairiePlains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. U.S. Department of War. 1825. Indian Treaties, and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To Which is Added an Appendix Containing the Proceedings of the Old Congress, and Other Important State Papers, in Relation to Indian Affairs. Washington City: Way and Gideon.

Dalles, The, Oregon The Dalles, a place name, refers to two geographic features: a narrow channel of the middle Columbia River near the Cascade Mountain divide, and the adjacent land on the south bank in Oregon. The Dalles was part of a series of rapids and falls where the elevation of the Columbia drops toward the Pacific, creating ideal conditions for netting migrating fish. Dividing the western forests from the eastern high desert, this was a spiritual, fishing, and trading center for thousands of years. Several Upper Chinookan and River Sahaptian peoples lived in the area, and others visited seasonally. In 1811, fur trader Alexander Ross described it as “the great emporium or mart of the Columbia.” Trade goods arrived from British Columbia, the Pacific Coast, California, and the Great Plains. In the 1830s, The Dalles was a Christian mission, a colonial settlement, and an army fort. It became a regional treaty site in 1855. Native peoples from Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce continued to use the area after white settlement. Some people avoided removal to the reservations and formed a multiethnic identity as Columbia River Indians, or the River People. Hydroelectric dams flooded many of the fisheries and sacred places, including The Dalles and neighboring Celilo Falls. Legal battles erupted over salmon procurement. However, the Columbia River Indians who live on the river and on the reservations

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dalles, The, Oregon

415

Treaties opened up the Pacific Northwest to settlement and The Dalles was at the end of the Oregon Trail, bringing settlers to the region. (Library of Congress)

continue to assert their aboriginal rights to the site and its resources. The relationship between The Dalles and the Columbia River Indians is ancient. Material evidence of Native occupation of the area dates back over eleven thousand years, and oral traditions describe geological events from the distant past. Culturally, the people of The Dalles region, or Wascopam, included Upper Chinookan peoples, with relatives downriver to the Pacific Ocean, and Sahaptians, with relatives upriver to Priest’s Rapids and on the Columbia Plateau. Nez Perce and Cayuse from the plateau were often present at The Dalles for extended periods. Robert Boyd hypothesizes that these winter, multiethnic cohabitations grew with European contact as horses increased and plateau Indians accessed the Great Plains after the 1730s. They then brought Great Plains products to trade. Through the mid-nineteenth century, disease killed many people around The Dalles without decreasing resources, allowing diverse Indians to make homes in the area. At The Dalles, relations between Native peoples and colonials were rarely violent, although Columbia River Indians consistently pressed the

www.abc-clio.com

newcomers to accommodate their traditional use of the area. Tense moments occurred during Lewis and Clark’s return voyage in 1806, and altercations occasionally occurred from 1812 to 1814 and in 1855. More commonly, however, Native peoples assisted colonials in portaging and navigating the dangerous rapids and incorporated the new people and products into the existing trade network. The Treaty of Middle Oregon of 1855 established the legal identities of the Yakama Nation on the north side of the Columbia (Washington) and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and the Umatilla on the south side (Oregon), with three corresponding reservations. The Nez Perce retained some lands in western Idaho. Branded “renegades” and “vagabonds” by European Americans, many Indians refused to relocate to the new reservations and continued to live near The Dalles, Celilo Falls, and neighboring fishing sites. In the late 1800s, they earned legal rights to the lands that they had refused to abandon. The River People, notably David Sohappy, have been at the heart of Native efforts to retain fishing rights on the middle Columbia River since the 1960s. Although the namesake geological formation is now drowned by

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

416

Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi

The Dalles Dam, River Indians continue to occupy “in-lieu” fishing sites that the federal government established, small off-reservation communities such as Celilo Village, and the reservations. Gray H. Whaley See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether; Sacred Sites; Sohappy, David, Sr.; Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon (1969); Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon–June 25, 1855; Trust Land. References and Further Readings Boyd, Robert. 1996. People of The Dalles, the Indians of Wascopam Mission: A Historical Ethnography Based on the Papers of the Methodist Missionaries. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Andrew H. Fisher. 2001. “‘They Mean To Be Indian Always’: The Origins of Columbia River Indian Identity, 1860–1885.” Western Historical Quarterly 32:4, 468–492. Ross, Alexander. 1986. Adventures of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River, 1810–1813. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi Dancing Rabbit Creek in Mississippi was the site of an important council ground. At this site, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was signed on September 27, 1830. This agreement involved the United States and a faction of the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi. It is commonly referred to as the Choctaw removal treaty. After the signing of this treaty, the Choctaw people were forced to move from their ancient homelands in Mississippi to the unexplored area of the American West called the Great American Desert. Most of this area became the state of Oklahoma in 1906. The council ground at Dancing Rabbit Creek lies between two branches of Dancing Rabbit Creek within Noxubee County in what is now the state of Mississippi. A granite monument was placed there in 1928 by the Bernard Romans Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution of Columbus, Mississippi. The Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians resides on a reservation of thirty thousand acres near this site. Donna L. Akers See also Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Territory; LeFlore, Greenwood; Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830.

www.abc-clio.com

References and Further Reading Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix, AZ: Indian Tribal Series. Cushman, H. B. 1999. History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Doak’s Stand, Mississippi Doak’s Stand is a tavern and trading post named for its builder, merchant William Doak, an 1810 emigrant to the Choctaw Nation. Doak’s tavern was on the Natchez Trace near modern Jackson, Mississippi. On October 18, 1820, Doak’s Stand was the site of a treaty of “friendship” and “limits and accommodation” between the United States and the Choctaw Nation. It was the fifth major Choctaw cession treaty; the first was the Treaty of Fort Adams in 1801. Leading the negotiations for the United States at Doak’s Stand was Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, considered by many to be the architect of Indian removal. Thomas Jefferson, early in the nineteenth century, was the first to articulate Indian removal. In 1817, President James Monroe declared that U.S. security depended on rapid settlement of the Southwest and that, accordingly, it was in the best interests of Indians to relocate west of new U.S. settlement. In 1825, Monroe set before Congress the first actual proposal to resettle all eastern tribes on tracts in the West, on which the federal government would prohibit white citizens from living. Jackson had become a forceful proponent of removal by the time of his election to the presidency in 1828. The success of the Doak’s Stand treaty set an important precedent for this shift in federal Indian policy, which was fully realized in the 1830s. Negotiations began at Doak’s Stand in 1819. The Choctaw were asked to exchange a “small part” of their national territory for “a country beyond the Mississippi River” in order to relocate all those Choctaw who “live by hunting and will not work.” This “small part” of the Choctaw Nation

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Doaksville, Oklahoma

actually amounted to nearly five and a half million acres, comprising a significant portion of central and western Mississippi. Initially, the Choctaw would not concede to the proposed terms of the treaty. Tribal leaders consulted with Christian missionaries in their nation. Cyrus Kingsbury, a prominent Presbyterian missionary, gave the Choctaw his personal approval of the U.S. plan. Under the direction of Pushmataha, the Choctaws signed the Treaty of Doak’s Stand in October 1820, ceding about a third of all Choctaw territory. The treaty gave the United States western Mississippi in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi River, from the Cherokee boundary on the Arkansas River, up the same to its fork with the Canadian River in Oklahoma, then south to the Red River and down the same back up to the Arkansas. In all, this area comprised more than thirteen million acres, or most of western Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. Further, the United States agreed to provision each adult male Choctaw emigrant with a blanket, a kettle, a rifle, bullet molds, and enough ammunition for hunting and defense for one year; and each warrior ’s family received enough corn to support them for one year. The United States had purchased the cession land first from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and then from the Quapaw tribe in 1818. Yet there were already several thousand U.S. settlers in the Arkansas Territory who objected to having to vacate and abandon their improvements to the Choctaw. To correct this problem, U.S. commissioners met with Choctaw leaders at the Treaty of Washington City, January 20, 1825. In this, the United States asked the Choctaw to cede back the eastern portion of the land given in the Treaty of Doak’s Stand. The Choctaw, in need of money and provisions, were easily persuaded to sign the new treaty. The Treaty of Washington fixed the eastern limit of the Choctaw cession at a line running due south from Fort Smith to Red River, thus forming what became and remains the present ArkansasOklahoma boundary. Doak’s Stand was the first large-scale effort at removal. The treaty opened former Choctaw lands to settlement by U.S. citizens. Choctaw who remained in their former country could merge into a new “Mississippi” society by claiming private tracts of land, receiving “American” education, and adopting “civilized” habits. Between 1820 and 1830, nearly thirty thousand settlers moved into the lands opened up by the cession. The remaining

www.abc-clio.com

417

Choctaws quickly found themselves surrounded and well outnumbered. By then, the Choctaw were ready to accept further cessions, and the bulk of the nation finally agreed to remove across the Mississippi. A century after Doak’s Stand, in Mississippi barely a thousand Choctaw remained, a largely landless and marginalized enclave. At the same time, thousands of other Choctaw struggled to maintain their culture in the relatively new state of Oklahoma. The burgeoning power of the United States and the dwindling influence of the Choctaw readily compromised the terms of the Doak’s Stand treaty. C. S. Everett See also Indian Removal; Jackson, Andrew; Pushmataha; Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820; Treaty with the Choctaw–January 20, 1825. References and Further Reading De Rosier, Arthur H., Jr. 1970. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington: Government Printing Office. Reeves, Carolyn Keller, ed. 1985. The Choctaw Before Removal. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Doaksville, Oklahoma One of the largest and most important towns in the Choctaw Nation and in Indian Territory during the 1800s, Doaksville flourished between the 1830s until shortly after the Civil War. Located just north of the Red River in southeast Indian Territory, Doaksville was an economic, social, educational, and political center. Doaksville’s beginnings preceded Choctaw removal. Originally a trading outpost established by Josiah and William Doak in 1821, the settlement began growing after nearby Fort Towson’s establishment in 1824 to protect settlers from Plains and Texas tribes and to place federal power on the international boundary with Mexico. During the 1830s, Doaksville became a main destination for removed Choctaw and Chickasaw. For the Chickasaw, Doaksville became a refugee camp between 1837 and 1842 until their lands further west could be made safe from marauding Kiowa and Comanche and cleared of intruders; there, they also suffered

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

418

Doaksville, Oklahoma

disease and malnutrition. For the Choctaw, Doaksville became a major center of activity and the largest town in Indian Territory. Its economy grew during the 1830s and 1840s as a trading and agricultural hub. Traders to the Plains tribes often supplied themselves at Doaksville, returning with tallow, hides, and pelts for export; Indian farmers and Indian plantation owners also relied on Doaksville for its cotton gins and gristmills. Imports and exports via the Red River connected the region to the South. Other facets of Choctaw and Chickasaw life were centered at Doaksville. It became a significant annuity distribution spot; on annuity days the community was a flurry of social, political, and economic activity. Indian education was also at Doaksville. The Choctaw-run Spencer Academy, founded in 1844, made Doaksville the first town in the region to have a boarding school. However, education and missionary activities were more often connected at places like Armstrong Academy, established by the American Indian Mission Association and later directed by the Cumberland Presbyterian Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions as a missionary day school; the campus served later as the Choctaw capital and as a home for orphan boys. Doaksville was also the first town in the Choctaw Nation with a newspaper; established in 1848, the Choctaw Telegraph was a bilingual paper printed in Choctaw and English. Doaksville’s greatest legacy was as a political center in intertribal as well as intratribal matters. Two important treaties were signed there. In 1837, the Choctaw and Chickasaw leaders met at Doaksville and forged agreements with each other and the United States for the Chickasaw to acquire land in the Choctaw territory. This Treaty of Doaksville (arranged before Chickasaw removal) allowed the Chickasaw, for the consideration of $530,000, to settle in the central and western portions of the Choctaw lands, to form the Chickasaw District of the Choctaw Nation, and to hold equal rights throughout the Choctaw Nation. A later treaty between the two tribes was signed at Doaksville in 1854, settling any boundary disputes from the treaty of 1837. Doaksville served as the Choctaw national capital from 1850 until 1863, a time of tumultuous intratribal politics. Disaffected traditionalists gathered at Doaksville in 1858, created a new constitution, and elected rival officials. Friction and the threat of civil

www.abc-clio.com

war within the tribe often occurred near Doaksville. Eventually, a compromise was struck at the Choctaw Convention of 1860 at Doaksville, where the Doaksville Constitution was crafted and under which the nation operated thereafter. Doaksville is also where the Civil War began and ended for the Choctaw Nation. In 1861, tribal pro-secessionists gathered at Doaksville and moved the Choctaw from neutrality to Confederate support. The Choctaw National Council declared Choctaw independence, appointed a committee to enter a treaty of alliance with the Confederacy and to negotiate that agreement with Confederate agent Albert Pike, and authorized the creation of Choctaw military forces to hold Indian Territory. Like much of Indian Territory, the Doaksville region suffered devastation from the war. At the war’s end, Doaksville again emerged as important for the Choctaw and for Indian Territory. On June 9, 1865, the Civil War officially ended for the Choctaw when Chief Peter Pitchlynn surrendered his Indian troops to federal officials there. The Civil War in Indian Territory actually ended in Doaksville two weeks later, when Brigadier General Stand Watie (Cherokee) came into town and laid down his arms; he was the last Confederate general to do so. The Civil War ushered in Doaksville’s downturn. In 1863, the Choctaw capital was moved to Chahta Tamaha, and thereafter Doaksville began to decline rapidly. After the turn of the century, new railroad lines and new towns supplanted Doaksville’s once-great prominence. Today, little remains of this ghost town to reflect its former importance. S. Matthew DeSpain

ABC-CLIO

See also Indian Territory; Pitchlynn, Peter; Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17, 1837; Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–November 4, 1854; Watie, Stand. References and Further Reading Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix, AZ: Indian Tribal Series. Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. De Rosier, Arthur H., Jr. 1970. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

1-800-368-6868

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma

McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma Fort Gibson is located at the confluence of the Verdigris, Arkansas, and Neosho rivers in the easternmost area of the Cherokee Nation. Colonel Matthew Arbuckle and the Seventh Infantry began construction on the fort in 1824. It replaced Fort Smith, Arkansas, as the westernmost outpost in the territory obtained by the Louisiana Purchase. Arbuckle named the fort after Commissary General George Gibson. In the 1820s and 1830s, the fort served as the major link between the U.S. government and the Plains Indians and as one of a series of forts charged with maintaining order on the frontier. During the 1820s and 1830s, the fort became the staging area for the resettlement of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Seminole, and Muscogee (Creek) Indians forced from their homes in the southeastern United States. Emigrating Indians stopped by the fort to obtain provisions such as clothing, blankets, food, guns, knives, farming implements, seeds, and other items necessary to establish new homes in Indian Territory. The major responsibilities of the soldiers stationed at the fort were to maintain peace between the Osage and Cherokee Indians, to provide military protection for survey teams, to remove white settlers from Indian Territory, and to construct roads. Colonel Arbuckle frequently complained that he had too few soldiers under his command to carry out the assigned duties. As a result, the condition of the facility suffered. Although the fort was the principal fortification in the West, it developed an unhealthy reputation. According to some of the people who helped build the fort, many of the structures rotted before they were finished. During its first eleven years of occupation, 561 privates and nine officers died of disease. In 1845, the fort was relocated onto higher ground a quarter mile from its original site, and the new buildings were constructed of stone. Unfortunately, the new location was no more healthful than the previous setting, and the soldiers still were plagued by disease. By the 1850s, the people of the Cherokee Nation wanted the fort closed; they argued that they were

www.abc-clio.com

419

no longer “uncivilized” and did not need military supervision. Additionally, they charged that the presence of soldiers increased the availability of alcohol to their citizens, and they wanted the brothels surrounding the fort closed. The Cherokees were eager to assume control of the boat landing and the rivers. Apparently the Cherokees argued effectively, for the fort reverted to Cherokee ownership in June 1857. The fort did not stay under Cherokee control for long. In 1861, the American Civil War began, and Confederate forces quickly took control of the fort. It was of strategic importance to the Confederacy and also served as the headquarters for their Indian Department. The fort stayed under Confederate control until 1863, when Union forces under the command of William A. Phillips forced the Confederates from the stronghold. Phillips temporarily changed the name of the fortification to Fort Blunt in honor of General James G. Blunt, the commander of the District of Kansas, and the Cherokee Nation moved its headquarters into the fort. Confederate forces harassed the fort throughout the remainder of the war, but the Union forces managed to retain control. When the Civil War ended, the fort served as the major center of aid for refugee Indians and freedmen returning home. By 1871, most of the troops were removed from the area, and the post became a commissary supply post. However, military forces returned about a year later. As railroads were built through Indian Territory, squatters, outlaws, whiskey traders, and other undesirable people began to enter the area. From 1872 until its final closure, the fort’s primary responsibility was to prevent white intrusions onto Indian lands. The fort had a reputation as a dangerous outpost infested with criminals, fortune seekers, and other riffraff. When allotments came for the Indians and on military paydays, gamblers and whiskey traders swarmed the area in an effort to separate Indians and soldiers from their money. In the summer of 1890, all troops were withdrawn from the area. The fort was reoccupied for short periods of time during the 1890s, but the buildings were uninhabitable by 1897, and the troops camped on the parade grounds. In the late 1890s, the fort was permanently closed. Today, Fort Gibson is a historic site managed by the Oklahoma Historical Society. Joyce Ann Kievit

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

420

Fort Harmar, Ohio

See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Ross, John. References and Further Reading Agnew, Brad. 1980. Fort Gibson, Terminal on the Trail of Tears. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bearss, Edwin C., and Arrell M. Gibson. 1969. Fort Smith: Little Gibraltar on the Arkansas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Foreman, Grant. 1936. Fort Gibson: A Brief History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Fort Harmar, Ohio Fort Harmar was established in 1785 near the confluence of the Muskingum and Ohio rivers in what is now the state of Ohio. The base occupied territory opposite the original site of Marietta, Ohio, and has since been assimilated into the city. The fort was built under orders of General Josiah Harmar, the commander of the U.S. force in the area, and was the site of some important treaty negotiations with Indians of the region. Congress dispatched Harmar to the region in 1784 with orders to prevent the contacts between white settlers and Indians from escalating into a full-scale border war. As the War of Independence came to an end, settlers began pouring into the western territories in large numbers. All those concerned in the delicate maneuverings of frontier Indian policy, from Secretary of War Henry Knox down, knew that the country could ill afford a war with the Native Americans. It was in partial fulfillment of this mission that Josiah Harmar ordered the fort constructed. Thus, Fort Harmar has the distinction of being the only base created to stop unlawful settlement. In reality, the post ended up encouraging illegal settlement in that the people living on the frontier came to it when they were threatened by Indians. The actual construction of the post was overseen by Captains John Doughty and Jonathan Heart and performed by the men under their command. Initially, the structure consisted of a small, pentagonal, star-shaped stockade fort. The primary material used in construction was logs. At each of the five corners, instead of the more commonly used blockhouse, were pentagonal bastions that mounted several cannons each. The artillery was sited so as to sweep the land approaches to the fort. In all, the fort covered about three-fourths of an acre. The walls were 120 feet long and constructed of large timbers laid horizontally, reaching a height of

www.abc-clio.com

between twelve and fourteen feet. All in all, the fort presented a formidable appearance. The enlisted men’s barracks were within the walls and were divided into thirty-foot rooms and furnished with fireplaces. The fireplaces were among the only stone furnishings in the fort. The officers’ quarters were built into the bastions. Once it was decided to open up the Northwest Territory to settlement, Fort Harmar was selected as the site of the first large-scale legal settlement under the Northwest Ordinance. The mission of the fort became one of slowing settlement until the land in the vicinity could be surveyed and divided up into lots for sale. Likewise, as settlers began to move into the area in greater numbers, more friction with the Indians developed. The fort then became more like a frontier military post, from which detachments were sent out to guard surveyors as they marked the area and to guard various movements of men and supplies through the territory. The tensions with the Indians and violence perpetrated by men on both sides eventually led the governor of the territory, Arthur St. Clair, to call the aggrieved tribes to a treaty council. Later, the fort served as a meeting site for the negotiations with the Indians in the area that led to the Treaty of Fort Harmar. This treaty, negotiated in late 1788 and agreed to in 1789, reaffirmed the boundary line set by the previous Treaty of Fort McIntosh. Likewise, it guaranteed the Indians in the vicinity the right to hunt on lands in the ceded areas. The negotiator for the United States at Fort Harmar was Arthur St. Clair. Treaties were negotiated with the Iroquois and the Wyandot. The fort remained a frontier garrison until 1790. At that point, the men were ordered to move on to Fort Washington in Cincinnati. The troops that were removed from the fort were later used in St. Clair ’s expedition against the northwestern tribes. James McIntyre

ABC-CLIO

See also Knox, Henry; St. Clair, Arthur; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789. References and Further Reading Gaff, Alan D. 2004. Bayonets in the Wilderness: Anthony Wayne’s Legion in the Old Northwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Havinghurst, Walter. 1976. Ohio: A History. New York: W. W. Norton. Knepper, George W. 1989. Ohio and Its People. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

1-800-368-6868

Fort Laramie, Wyoming

421

Roberts, Robert B., ed. 1988. Encyclopedia of Historic Forts: The Military, Pioneer, and Trading Posts of the United States. New York: Macmillan. Sword, Wiley. 1985. President Washington’s Indian War: The Struggle for the Old Northwest 1790–1795. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Fort Harrison, Indiana In August 1811, Governor William Henry Harrison received permission from the secretary of war to construct at least one fort along the Wabash River in present-day Indiana. He chose a site known by the old French name Battelle des Illinois, where at some point in the distant past there had been a battle between the Illinois and the Iroquois. Located at present-day Terre Haute, Indiana, the fort was built by the Indiana militia above the east bank of the Wabash as a depot for supplies as part of Harrison’s campaign against the Prophet. Farther up the river and closer to the eventual battle of Tippecanoe, another blockhouse was constructed. After the battle, the fort continued to be occupied by troops. Captain Zachary Taylor of the Seventh Infantry Regiment took command of the post in 1812. Following the Indian success at Fort Dearborn to the north (in present-day Chicago) and while laying siege to Fort Wayne (in present-day Indiana), the Potawatomi and Kickapoo made a raid on Fort Harrison. Early on the third day of September 1812, Miami and Wea Indians visited the fort and told the commanding officer that followers of the Prophet would be making war and that he and his army should leave at once. Later in the day, two civilians haying beyond the stockade walls were shot and killed. With half his fifty-five-man garrison sick with fever, Taylor had good reason to be concerned. During the night, one of the blockhouses was set afire despite sentinels on duty. Taylor issued orders for all posts to be manned. Throughout the ensuing days, Taylor waited for an opportunity to send someone to Vincennes for help. In the meantime, he and his garrison were pinned down. On September 13, he sent one of his sergeants and a settler. Their journey succeeded. On September 15, a ranger force of nearly a thousand men arrived under the command of Colonel William Russell. Following the end of the War of 1812, a treaty was concluded at Fort Harrison in 1816 between the United States, represented by Commissioner John L.

www.abc-clio.com

Fort Harrison in 1812. (Library of Congress)

McCullough, and the headmen representing the Wea and Kickapoo. The treaty included a pledge of peace and acknowledgement of the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. Sally Colford Bennett See also Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811; Harrison, William Henry; Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo–June 4, 1816. References and Further Reading Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Esarey, Logan. 1922. Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison, vol. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission. Fort Harrison Centennial Association. 1912. Fort Harrison on the Banks of the Wabash, 1812–1912. Terre Haute, IN: Fort Harrison Centennial Association. Kappler, Charles A., ed. 1904. “Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816.” Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Fort Laramie, Wyoming Fort Laramie, located in eastern Wyoming, served first as a major trading post and after 1849 as a U.S. Army post. The post played a significant role in the region by protecting overland travelers and as a major juncture, first for the fur trade and later for

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

422

Fort Laramie, Wyoming

the Plains Indian campaigns. In 1851 and in 1868, important treaties were signed at the fort with northern Plains tribes. The fort was abandoned by the military in 1890 and serves today as a National Historic Site. Aspiring to take advantage of the lucrative fur trade in the region, William Sublette and Robert Campbell, two experienced traders, established Fort Laramie in 1834. The fort is located on the left bank of the Laramie River about a mile above its junction with the North Platte River. At the time of its establishment, Fort Laramie was the first permanent settlement of white men in the heart of the buffalo country. The name of the fort has changed over time. In 1834, it was named Fort William; and in 1841, when the second fort was built, its name was changed to Fort John. All along, Fort Laramie was the most popular name for the place. After the military took over in 1849, this popular name was retained and made official. The name comes from the nearby river, which was named after French trapper Jacques Laramie. On June 26, 1849, the U.S. Army purchased the post for $4,000 from the American Fur Company,

which had acquired it in 1836. The site was ideal for a military post. It was located on the Platte River line of overland march and was widely influential in the fur trade of the region. In addition, the fort was outside the buffalo ranges of the Plains tribes and therefore did not interfere with their major commissary. As overland travel increased rapidly, the army recognized the growing importance of the region. The need to protect travelers from Indians was a major concern for the military. Following the purchase, the army embarked on a major transformation of the post. At first, old buildings were occupied by the military units, but gradually they were torn down; by 1862 they had been replaced completely with new structures. The army used the fort mainly to aid overland travelers and to control Indian tribes. For travelers, the fort provided supplies, medical care, communication facilities, and other services. The army also improved the trails. Fort Laramie was in many ways an isolated community in the middle of the plains, but for many travelers it functioned as an important landmark of civilization amid wilderness.

A Native American encampment outside Fort Laramie in Wyoming, the scene of the Grattan Massacre on August 19, 1854. The massacre of Lieutenant John L. Grattan and almost all of his detachment occurred when the Sioux refused to turn over a warrior who had stolen and butchered a stray cow. Grattan’s men opened fire, but were overpowered and slaughtered by the Sioux. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Fort Laramie, Wyoming

423

General William T. Sherman and Sioux leaders sign the Fort Laramie Treaty at Fort Laramie, Wyoming in 1868. (National Archives)

The fort had a significant role in the Indian wars. Many small skirmishes were fought in the vicinity, but Fort Laramie’s main function was as a supply station for the soldiers during the northern Plains Indian campaigns. In 1851 and 1868, two major treaties with the northern Plains tribes were signed at the fort. With these treaties, the Indians surrendered most of their claims to the region. The Sioux and Cheyenne campaigns of 1876 and 1877 saw the last major military confrontations with Native Americans in the region. With the coming of the railroads and increasing settlement, the role of the fort changed. The Union Pacific railway ran seventy miles to the south, and the Chicago Northwestern ran fifty miles to the north; no longer on the main routes of travel, the fort began to decline in importance. In the late 1870s, ranchers and homesteaders moved into the region. At first, the fort served as a supply center and offered protection for many of these settlers; but in 1890, four years after recommendations

www.abc-clio.com

were made for its abandonment and one year after the decision was reached, the troops marched away from Fort Laramie for the last time. For nearly fifty years, the fort was allowed to decay. In 1937, Wyoming appropriated funds for the purchase of the former military site and its donation to the federal government. In 1938, the Fort Laramie Historic Site became a unit in the National Park System. The fort has been restored to its 1876 appearance. Janne Lahti See also: Annuities; Treaty; Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc.– September 17, 1851. References and Further Reading Hafen, Le Roy R., and Francis Marion Young. 1984. Fort Laramie and the Pageant of the West, 1834–1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hedren, Paul L. 1998. Fort Laramie and the Great Sioux War. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Nadeau, Remi. 1997. Fort Laramie and the Sioux. Santa Barbara, CA: Crest.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

424

Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania

. . . a great five-sided ditch, with the earth of the ditch thrown up to form a rampart over twenty feet high and sixty feet wide. On the landward side, the ramparts supported by strong brick retaining walls, with the tips of the bastions further reinforced by cut stone. On the less vulnerable river sides, the walls and bastions were sodded. They were covered with squares of turf laid perpendicularly to the slope of the wall, and secured with long wooden pins. On top of the ramparts, a sodded parapet 18 feet thick was erected for protection of artillery and soldiers firing small arms. Behind this parapet ran a level space 20 feet wide, providing a platform for cannon and the necessary room for recoil after firing. . . . A sentry walking his post on the high, windy ramparts of Fort Pitt, looked down on a kind of walled city inside the great pentagon of earth and masonry. Around the central parade could be housed from 700 to 1,000 men. Two storied barracks, one of brick 190 feet long quartered the wooden ones of weatherboard and shingles, were provided with chimneys that served four rooms and furnished cooking facilities. In the brick barracks there was a closet in each room, building with cut-stone steps. All these long, narrow buildings could be seen grouped symmetrically around the parade, parallel to the curtain walls. But hidden away in the immensely thick ramparts were large storehouses, magazines, and casements. Most provision and all the ammunition was stored underground. Underground was also the guardhouse and dungeons, where prisoners awaited trial in the darkness. (O’Meara 1965)

Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania The Fort Pitt stronghold played an important role in early American history. Its location at the intersection of three major rivers (the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and the Ohio) was strategically important for anyone wanting to secure the area. During the mid-eighteenth century, England and France jockeyed for position and claims to land in the New World. During the 1750s, the French tried to gain an edge on the English by denying them access to Ohio country. To accomplish this task, the French captured many English settlements in the area now known as western Pennsylvania. One such captured outpost was that founded by the Englishman William Trent in the late 1740s at the intersection of those most important three rivers. The French captured this key outpost in 1754 and immediately began to construct Fort Duquesne. The escalating tension between the French, the English, and the Native Americans peaked in 1756 at the start of the French and Indian War. In the winter of 1758, the English army, led by General John Forbes, was accompanied by George Washington, John Armstrong, and the Swiss officer Colonel Henry Bouquet. Washington commanded 1,900 troops from Virginia, and John Armstrong commanded 2,700 men from Pennsylvania. The troops marched across the Juniata River and over the Allegheny foothills on a course to Fort Duquesne. Washington, sent forward to the fort with 2,500 men, was quite surprised to find only 500 French troops at Fort Duquesne. The French, seeing Washington’s forces, burned the fort and ran for cover. On November 25, 1758, the English secured Fort Duquesne and renamed it Fort Pitt in honor of the English statesman William Pitt. Once the English controlled the strategic area of Fort Pitt, they began construction on a new and improved fort. Construction on the fort officially began on the arrival of General Stanwix’s chief engineer, Captain Harry Gordon. The crew arrived in August, and work began on September 3, 1759. The crew felled trees and dug coal and limestone from the surrounding hills in the area that is now Mount Washington. A sawmill was built upstream from the fort, and lumber was sent downriver to the fort. Due to a lack of necessary lumber resources in the area, General Stanwix ordered the fort to be a dirt one. It has been described as

www.abc-clio.com

Fort Pitt was not only an important geographic location for the French and Indian War, it was the first place where a treaty was signed between the United States and the Delaware (Lanape) Indians. The treaty with the Delaware was signed on September 17, 1778, and was composed of six articles. The first article stated that “all offences or acts of hostilities by one, or either of the contracting parties against the other, be mutually forgiven, and buried in the depth of oblivion, never more to be had in remembrance.” This historic document was signed by Andrew Lewis, Thomas Lewis, White Eyes, the Pipe, and John Kill Buck at Fort Pitt. Arthur Holst

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Fort Sumner, New Mexico

See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775; Knox, Henry; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778. References and Further Reading O’Meara, Walter. 1965. Guns at the Forks. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York and London: Oxford University Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1990. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fort Sumner, New Mexico Fort Sumner, New Mexico, on a parcel of land that covered more than twenty-five square miles, was the site of the largest internment of Native Americans in U.S. history. The Bosque Redondo Reservation was

created in 1861 as part of a new policy for the relocation of Navajos and Apaches. The captive Indians were relocated to the reservation in a forced march called the Long Walk. The treaty of 1868 recognized the failure of the reservation experiment for Navajo and Apache peoples and ordered the abandonment of the remote camp. Beginning in the 1840s, the United States concluded a series of treaties with the Navajo, annexing their land and regulating trade. By 1851, a network of garrisons had been built to defend sheep and cattle ranches from Indian raids. Using the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of June 1834 as the foundation for the roundup, military orders were given to halt the attacks and capture raiders and other Native Americans living in the area. General James H. Carleton and Colonel Christopher “Kit” Carson were the architects of this reservation plan. The Fort Sumner area was selected in 1863 in the belief that it would create a buffer between Native American raiding groups. Almost nine thousand Navajo and Apache were relocated to the

Fort Sumner, New Mexico, was near the end of the 300-mile “Long Walk” of the Navajos resulting in their exile from their homelands. In 1868 they were allowed to return home. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

425

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

426

Greenville, Ohio

remote reservation, where an attempt would be made to “reeducate” them to adopt “white ways” and to develop a “model” agricultural station. The first group, of more than five thousand, was held under prisonlike conditions; food and supply distribution problems caused death from starvation and disease. Insect infestations, hailstorms, and flooding destroyed crops for three straight years. By 1865, the raiding parties regained control, and Indians violated laws by leaving the reservation in droves. Though the federal government spent over $1 million annually to maintain the camp, the plan was an utter failure. After a year of political debate involving the Doolittle Committee, the Office of Indian Affairs, and an Indian Peace Commission, the remaining Navajos were allowed to leave Fort Sumner in June 1868. A subsequent agreement signed at Fort Sumner created a permanent reservation of almost 3.5 million square miles along the present New MexicoArizona border. Unfortunately, key economic centers and the richest farm and grazing lands were wrested from Navajo control by the agreement. Indian groups were given unwritten permission to use off-reservation land in the Fort Sumner area provided it was not occupied by whites. Many Navajos took this opportunity to return to their original homesites. The Bosque Redondo experience was so traumatic for the Navajo nation that their history marks its timeline from the time of the incarceration forward. Pamela Lee Gray See also Carson, Kit; Doolittle Committee; Long Walk; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868. References and Further Reading Bailey, Garrick Alan, and Roberta Glenn Bailey. 1998. A History of the Navajo: The Reservation Years. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Iverson, Peter. 1981. The Navajo Nation. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Johnson, Broderick H., ed. 1970. Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo Community College Press.

Greenville, Ohio Greenville, Ohio, is located along Greenville Creek and Mud Creek in western Ohio, about twenty miles

www.abc-clio.com

west of the city of Piqua. Greenville lends its name to two treaties: the first Treaty of Greenville in 1795, following the Frontier Wars of the Old Northwest, and the second in 1814, during the War of 1812. Founded in 1794 by General Anthony Wayne, the original place name of Fort Green Ville, used as a supply depot, was bestowed by Wayne in honor of his late friend General Nathaniel Greene, a Revolutionary War comrade. Following the American victory in 1795, Wayne ordered all tribes to attend a council and agree to the treaty to put an end to the war and settle “controversies.” The U.S. government wished to “restore harmony and friendly intercourse.” On August 3, 1795, an agreement was concluded that established a boundary line between the land belonging to the Indians and the land belonging to the United States. The Indians agreed not to make war on the United States or any of the people on the American or eastern side of the boundary. Though most of this land was in the Territory of Ohio and later would become the state of Ohio, some of it extended into what became the territory of Indiana, leaving that area to come into some dispute in the very first decade of the nineteenth century. The Indians were to allow whites to freely travel through their country along a chain of posts established in another article of the treaty. The Indians agreed to give up or cede land covering some sixteen different areas, including Fort Wayne, Detroit, Michilimackinac, and Chicago. These sites had become or were about to become U.S. military garrisons for the purpose of policing and preventing whites from settling on land nearby. Other exceptions of land included the sites of Fort Knox, near Vincennes on the Wabash River; Fort Massac, on the Ohio; and Clarksville, also on the Ohio. During the years following the Treaty of Greenville, the U.S. Army came to be known as the Peace Establishment Army because it was to maintain peace on the frontier and in Indian country and to prevent the intrusion of whites onto land belonging exclusively to the Indians. By the Indians’ agreement, the U.S. government would relinquish land north of the Ohio River and west of the agreed-upon boundary line. This treaty brought about fifteen years of uneasy peace—uneasy due to the administration of President Thomas Jefferson in 1801. In February 1803, President Jefferson commissioned Indiana Territory’s governor, William Henry Harrison, to treat for the U.S. government.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Medicine Creek, Washington

Harrison was given the power to work out land cession treaties with all tribes in the Old Northwest territory, beginning in April 1803 at Fort Wayne. Jefferson revealed his intentions and interests in a secretive letter that spelled out how the United States was to encourage the leaders of tribes to run up debts to the U.S. government and then use the land cessions as a way to pay off such debt. In addition, the plan was to eventually move all Indians to land west of the Mississippi. At the time, Jefferson was working under the threat of Napoleon’s possible reestablishment of the French in the Louisiana Territory. The treaties that followed in 1803, 1805, and particularly in 1809, contributed to increasing tension along the Greenville treaty line and beyond. As the name of Fort Greene Ville gave way to Greenville, white settlers poured into western Ohio lands. Just before 1804, two Shawnee brothers— Tecumseh, a political leader, and Tenskwatawa, the Prophet—decided to establish a village alongside Greenville that is often referred to as the first Prophetstown. As the brothers spread their political and spiritual gospel, Indians as well as whites felt hostilities brewing. As the brothers’ influence increased, so did their village; followers flocked to make Greenville their home. Voicing their concerns about the treaties of Harrison’s manufacture and seeing the influx of settlers, the brothers felt exposed to their enemies by living so close to the whites. So in 1808, they moved to Indiana Territory, along the Tippecanoe and Wabash rivers, to establish the second Prophetstown. As the War of 1812 extended into 1814, the government directed Harrison, now a general, and Lewis Cass, governor of Michigan Territory, to treat once again—this time with the tribes that had followed the Shawnee brothers but now were interested in settling in favor of peace. Meeting at Greenville on July 22, 1814, the United States offered peace and asked the tribes to help the United States end the war with Great Britain and the tribes that remained hostile to the United States. In return for the Indians’ cooperation and aid, the United States agreed to keep land boundaries as they had been prior to the outbreak of the war. But this treaty was not the end of land boundary protection. With the war ending the following January, this Treaty of Greenville heralded a more pressing and demanding era of land cession treaties. Sally Colford Bennett

www.abc-clio.com

427

See also Cass, Lewis; Harrison, William Henry; Tecumseh; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 22, 1814; Wabash River, Indiana; Wayne, Anthony. References and Further Reading Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Esarey, Logan, ed. 1922. Governors’ Messages and Letters. Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Collections VII and IX. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission. Hornbeck, Helen Tanner, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sugden, John. 1997. Tecumseh, a Life. New York: Henry Holt.

Medicine Creek, Washington The Medicine Creek treaty was the first of ten treaties made with the Indians of Puget Sound, the Pacific Coast, and the lower Columbia River. This first treaty got its name from the location at which it was signed, the right bank of Medicine Creek. This creek parallels the Nisqually River and then runs west, emptying into Puget Sound (Hazard 1952, 123; White 1972, 60). The actual signing of the treaty happen on a wooded knoll, where the “Treaty Tree” (a Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii), now just a snag, stands in remembrance (Wilkinson 2000, 11). Today, this historic spot can be found by traveling on southbound Interstate 5 north of Olympia and taking Exit 114, half a mile after the Nisqually River Bridge. A marker in the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge commemorates the signing of the treaty (Hazard 1952, 126). At this historic site, on December 24–26, 1854, Isaac Stevens, the first territorial governor of Washington State (Hazard 1952, 125), sat in council with six hundred to seven hundred Nisqually, Squaxon, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Muckelshoot, and other bands of the upper Puget Sound Indians (White 1972, 60). It was here that sixty-two chiefs, delegates, and headmen of the tribes of King, Pierce, Thurston, and Mason counties signed the crucial treaty (Hazard 1952, 126; Stevens 1900, 460). In doing so, they relinquished title to 2.5 million acres (Wilkinson 2000, 12), thus reducing their tribal holdings to a mere 4,700 acres (Carpenter 1994, 391). In exchange, they were granted reservations and the right to graze their horses, hunt, and fish

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

428

Michilimackinac, Michigan

(Stevens 1900, 459; White 1972, 61; Wilkinson 2000, 12). The Puget Sound tribes were also to be paid $32,000 for their land in allotments over a twentyyear period (White 1972, 62); in addition, $3,250 was to be spent to equip the reservations with schools, medical facilities, and farm equipment. They were also promised carpenters, teachers, a blacksmith, and a physician (Stevens 1900, 459). Soon after the treaty was signed, the tribes began to realize that the heavily wooded reservations agreed to in the treaty were not compatible with their way of life (Hazard 1952, 126; White 1972, 65; Wilkinson 2000, 12). Governor Stevens had immediately forwarded the treaty to the U.S. Senate, who ratified it on March 3, 1855, only two months after the signing (Hazard, 1952, 126; Stevens 1900, 462). Leschi, the influential Nisqually chief, refused to move his people onto the reservation and began to fight for a more suitable land base (Wilkinson 2000, 15). In October 1855, after the United States failed to reach a compromise with Leschi, the Indian War of 1855–1857 erupted. The conflict lasted for more than eight months (Wilkinson 2000, 15). Governor Stevens eventually exchanged those reservations for fertile bottom soil suitable for farming (Hazard 1952, 127). Conflict over hunting and fishing rights also occurred as a result of the treaty. In the court case United States v. Washington State, the Puget Sound tribes argued that, according to the Medicine Creek treaty, they were allowed to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens of the Territory.” In 1974, in what is referred to as the Boldt Decision, the court ruled in favor of the Nisqually, giving them 50 percent of all the harvestable fish (Carpenter 1994, 392; Weatherford 1994, 202). Rene Casebeer See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. References and Further Reading Carpenter, Cecelia Svinth. 1994. Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Mary B. Davis. New York and London: Garland. Hazard, Joseph T. 1952. Companion of Adventure: A Biography of Isaac Ingalls Stevens: First Governor of Washington Territory. Portland, OR: Binfords, Mort. Stevens, Hazard. 1900. The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin/ Riverside Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Weatherford, Jack. 1994. Savages and Civilization. New York: Crown. White, Richard. 1972. “The Treaty at Medicine Creek: Indian-White Relations on Upper Puget Sound, 1830–1880.” Master’s thesis, University of Washington. Wilkinson, Charles. 2000. Messages from Frank’s Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian Way. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Michilimackinac, Michigan Originally, the name Michilimackinac was applied only to the 2,100-acre island that stands at the junction of Lakes Huron and Michigan. In time, the name was applied to the entire region of the Straits of Mackinac, the waterway separating Michigan’s northern peninsula from the Lower Peninsula. Michilimackinac is usually said to take its name from the Ojibwe for “Big Turtle.” The Ottawa historian Andrew Blackbird, in his traditional history, claimed that the proper name was Mishinemackinong and that it memorialized an earlier Indian people who made the island their home before being destroyed by the Iroquois. Following the construction of a French fort on the southern shore of the straits in 1715, Michilimackinac became an annual gathering point for the Ojibwe, Ottawa, and French fur traders. In 1761, the English took possession of the fort but failed to form amicable economic and political relations with the Ottawa and Ojibwe. This led to a successful Ottawa and Ojibwe attack on the fort in 1763. With greater tact, the English reestablished their garrison, only to relocate it from the mainland to Mackinac Island in 1779. From that time onward, Mackinac Island became the leading fur trading center in the Great Lakes region. In 1795, the Ojibwe and Ottawa ceded Michilimackinac to the United States in the Treaty of Greenville. Although the treaty stated that the cession included “[t]he post of Michilimackinac, and all the land on the island,” an Ottawa tradition held that the Ojibwe reserved the entire shore of the island as far inland as a stone could be thrown, to provide a camping place when they came to the island for council or trade. Ojibwe aid was critical to the success of the British in capturing and holding Mackinac Island during the War of 1812. Another small land cession was wrested from the Ojibwe and Ottawa in 1820. Lewis Cass, gover-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

New Echota, Georgia

nor of the Michigan Territory, held negotiations at Michilimackinac and at the Ottawa villages along Little Traverse Bay to win the cession of the Saint Martin Islands. These Lake Huron islands were thought by the U.S. government to be a valuable source of plaster of paris. In return for this cession, the Ottawa and Ojibwe received “a quantity of goods.” The most important treaty for the Ottawa and Ojibwe people of the Michilimackinac region was the 1836 Treaty of Washington. Negotiated by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, the treaty led to the cession of a large arc of northwestern Michigan lands, from the Grand River on the south to the headwaters of the Escanaba River in the Upper Peninsula. The negotiation took place under the shadow of U.S. removal policy. The decline of the fur trade economy and cultural changes triggered by the growth of Christian missions among the Ottawa and Ojibwe also played an important role in shaping the deal negotiated in Washington. For the Ottawa and Ojibwe, the draft treaty secured large reservations in the Michilimackinac area, relief of their fur trade debts, and much valuable aid for expanding their involvement in commercial farming, fishing, and education. The agreement seemed to meet the Ottawa’s and Ojibwe’s concerns for the future by protecting them from removal and empowering cultural and economic change. Between July 12 and 16, 1836, a general council of leaders of the Ottawa and Ojibwe bands was held on Mackinac Island. The purpose of the council was to obtain their consent for the treaty as revised by the U.S. Senate. The Senate had made a major revision in the treaty. The large reservations that, according to the draft treaty, were to be held for an unspecified time were altered to be held for a mere five years. In the draft treaty, removal was voluntary, with the region of the Upper Mississippi suggested as the site. The Senate removed all mention of the Upper Mississippi region and instead specified the region “South West of the Missouri River.” Instead of protecting the bands from removal, the revised treaty seemed to make that possibility imminent. Schoolcraft, who conducted the council, reported that some of the chiefs “strenuously opposed” giving up the reservations after only five years. In the end, the economic advantages of signing the treaty, together with the right of the Ottawa and Ojibwe to reside upon the ceded lands “until the land is required for settlement,” convinced the leaders to agree to the revised treaty.

www.abc-clio.com

429

In 1979, in the federal district court case United States v. Michigan, the meaning of the 1836 treaty became once more a matter of controversy. In that case, the Ottawa and Ojibwe successfully asserted that nothing in the 1836 treaty abridged their right to fish when and where they wanted on the Great Lakes, including on the waters of Michilimackinac. Theodore J. Karamanski See also Cass, Lewis; Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa–July 6, 1820; Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–March 28, 1836; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Trust Doctrine. References and Further Reading Danziger, Edmund, Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1967. Lewis Cass and American Indian Policy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

New Echota, Georgia Today, New Echota is a historic park located in Calhoun, Georgia. Several timber buildings located at the junction of the Coosawatee and Conasauga rivers are the only remaining relics of the capital established by the Cherokee Nation in 1825. The story of New Echota begins with change and the hopes of the Cherokee (Ani’-Yun’ wiya, “The People”) and ends tragically with the death of a group of important leaders and the forced removal of the majority of the nation’s citizens to present-day Oklahoma. The name New Echota was derived from Chota, an important historic Cherokee city located in present-day Tennessee. Chota describes the center and heart of the Ani’-Yun’ wiya. The Cherokee capital included the print shop of the Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, a bilingual newspaper written and edited by Elias Boudinot (Buck Oowaite) using the Cherokee alphabet invented by Sequoyah in 1821. The printing house was constructed late in 1827. The Vann Tavern, home of missionary Samuel Worcester, one of the major supporters of the Cherokee in Georgia, was also located in the capital. Cherokee surveyors planned the town with a central square and wide main streets. More than fifty people made their homes in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

430

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin

the new capital, and many more came to shop, to do business at the government offices, and to attend meetings at the Council House. The Council House in New Echota, along with the Supreme Court building, was the heart of the new government. New Echota was the capital of the eight districts of the Cherokee Nation, which included Hickory Log, Chickmaugee, Chattoogee, Amoah, Etowah, Tahquohee, Awuohee, and Coosewatee. Each district sent four delegates to the National Council, the lower house; in turn, these members elected twelve individuals to the National Committee, an upper house. The National Committee was responsible for electing the main chief, the assistant chief, and the Cherokee Nation’s treasurer. This governmental design changed the traditional Cherokee clan organization and instead used the model of the United States government: an upper and lower legislature, a high court, and an executive branch. The Council House and the Supreme Court building in New Echota were visible symbols of the new Cherokee Nation. Political treaties changing the course of the nation were debated and signed at the new capital. The Treaty of New Echota of 1835 was instrumental in the downfall and eventual assassination of three important Cherokee leaders. Elias Boudinot, John Ridge, and Major Ridge signed a treaty to sell eastern lands, including the area of New Echota, in exchange for land in present-day Oklahoma. The choice to sign and depart for land in Indian Territory or to stay and fight what seemed to be an unstoppable government from taking Cherokee lands in Georgia was a controversial and detailed decision. Not all Cherokees thought that leaving was the only option. Many of the tribe had left for new lands before the treaty in 1835. The Cherokee Nation presented a challenge, asking the U.S. high court to block the removal of the Cherokee from their lands in Georgia as required by the Cherokee Removal Act of 1830. The Supreme Court of the United States sided with the Cherokee Nation, but U.S. President Andrew Jackson would not recognize the court decision and ordered removal. The group was forcibly taken from the capital in 1838. This forced removal was known as the Trail of Tears. After the Cherokees were removed or moved away from the capital, the buildings fell into disrepair. The newspaper offices had been burned to the ground in a raid by the Georgia Guard in 1834. The once-proud capital was a ghost town by 1838. Town

www.abc-clio.com

structures were torn down for wood or simply lifted from their foundations and relocated to other areas. Today, visitors to New Echota can see re-creations of buildings that made up the Cherokee Nation in 1830. In the mid-1950s, Lewis Larsen, Joe Caldwell, and a group of archaeologists began research and restoration work. The Supreme Court and print shop have been reconstructed, and the Vann Tavern has been restored. New Echota is listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places and began operation as a state park in 1962. The buildings are open to the public and host educational events to celebrate Cherokee history and heritage throughout the year. Pamela Lee Gray See also Boudinot, Elias; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge, Major; Trail of Tears; Treaty with the Cherokee– December 29, 1835; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Bays, Brad A. 1998. Townsite Settlement and Dispossession in the Cherokee Nation, 1866–1907. New York and London: Garland. Conley, Robert J. 2005. The Cherokee Nation: A History. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Finger, John R. 1984. The Eastern Band of Cherokees: 1819–1900. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, is the site of three treaties among Native nations and the United States, the most significant of which was signed in 1825. In that year, disputes among Native tribes and the resulting impact on white settlement led the United States to convene a peace conference. A thousand representatives from Native tribes met at Prairie du Chien with William Clark, Lewis Cass, Indian agent Thomas Forsyth, and other U.S. negotiators to set boundaries for Native nations. Situated at the confluence of the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers, the site where the city of Prairie du Chien now stands had served as neutral ground for meetings among tribes for hundreds of years. French fur traders were established on St. Feriole Island at the confluence soon after the arrival there of Marquette and Jolliet in the late 1600s, and diverse tribes traded there. During the War of 1812, the British secured fleeting control

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin

431

Bluffs near Prairie du Chien, on the upper Mississippi River, north of the confluence with the Wisconsin River. The British post and settlement of Prarie du Chien had considerable influence over the Indians west of Lake Michigan and Superior. The post was captured by the Americans on June 2, 1814, only to be recaptured by the British less than a month later, remaining under British control until the end of the war. (North Wind Picture Archives)

over the area with the help of local tribes and French traders who were commercially tied to Canadian ports. With the conclusion of that war, the United States regained control over Prairie du Chien and built Fort Crawford, site of the treaty signing in 1825. By 1825, conflicts among Native groups had become common. Eastern tribes were relocating to new territories; alliances among tribes, the British and U.S. governments, and French fur traders shifted frequently; white settlement increasingly encroached on Native land; and competition for resources was growing. The treaty of 1825 addressed conflicts among tribes that lived in a vast area stretching from New York State to what is now South Dakota. Direct parties to the treaty included “Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox,

www.abc-clio.com

Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawattomie, Tribes.” The tenth article of the treaty asserted the “controlling power” of the United States over the territory in question. Other articles of the treaty stated the boundaries within which each group would live but acknowledged that further negotiation would be necessary to finalize several of the boundaries. Some groups with an interest in lands covered by the treaty—particularly tribes in New York—were not represented or were underrepresented in the negotiations at Prairie du Chien, and separate negotiations were required to secure their consent to provisions of the treaty. Ojibwe bands were spread throughout the area covered by the treaty, and a full year is allocated in the treaty for informing Ojibwe bands of its

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

432

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin

provisions. The work begun at Prairie du Chien was furthered in treaties at Fond du Lac in 1826 and Butte des Morts in 1827. While the Prairie du Chien treaty of 1825 was not a land concession treaty, it did serve as a critical step in the acquisition of Indian lands by white settlers and the federal government. Although the fourth article of the 1825 treaty at Prairie du Chien states that “the sole object of this agreement [is] to perpetuate a peace” among Native tribes, historians have debated how central land acquisition was to the intentions of the United States in brokering the treaty. Competing land claims by various tribes made land acquisition problematic, and the concept of strict divisions of territory was not necessarily compatible with traditional relationships to the land among many of the tribes. Regardless of whether the intent of the United States was to “clear the title” to millions of acres through the treaty of 1825, this was decidedly the outcome, and Indian landholdings rapidly diminished after 1825 through purchase by individuals and concessions in subsequent treaties.

The territory of the Dakota people, for instance, as defined in the treaty of 1825, covered part of what are now five states; by 1851, all Dakota people were expected by the federal government to live on a strip of land in Minnesota five miles wide and seventy miles long. Among the many land concession treaties that followed the “peace” treaty of 1825 are two that were signed in Prairie du Chien, by the Ojibwe people in 1829 and by members of a variety of tribes (including Ojibwe and Dakota bands) in 1830. Martin Case

See also Cass, Lewis; Clark, William; Forsyth, Thomas; Treaty with the Chippewa–August 5, 1826; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– August 11, 1827; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825. References and Further Reading Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Prairie du Chien was a regular trade site between Indians and the French as well as a treaty site between tribes and the United States. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions, Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 79(1), 1–251.

Sandy Lake, Minnesota Sandy Lake in northeastern Minnesota was the intended relocation destination of the Lake Superior Ojibwe and the site of an 1850 Ojibwe tragedy. In violation of terms agreed upon in the 1837 and 1842 Ojibwe land cession treaties, Indian agents moved the 1850 annuity payment location from La Pointe in Wisconsin Territory to Sandy Lake in Minnesota Territory, a distance of nearly three hundred canoe miles away. The change was intended to force the Ojibwe to overwinter in Minnesota, where government officials hoped to permanently relocate them. An estimated four thousand Ojibwe from nineteen bands made the trip. However, agents had not made adequate plans to feed or house them. Winter arrived early, and the payments and supplies were late. Approximately 170 Ojibwe died from dysentery and measles at Sandy Lake. Another 230 died trying to make their way back home. The tragedy increased Ojibwe resistance to relocation and intensified efforts to establish permanent reservations in Wisconsin. During the treaty negotiations of 1842, federal officials promised the Ojibwe they would not be removed from Wisconsin unless they “misbehaved.” Within six years, however, rumors of an impending relocation had reached tribal leaders. Principal Chief Buffalo sent out runners to the Ojibwe villages to see if any of the bands had, in fact, transgressed and broken the terms of the treaty. No such misbehavior was reported. However, on February 6, 1850, at the urging of Minnesota territorial governor Alexander Ramsey, President Zachary Taylor signed the removal order. Territorial officials wanted the patronage jobs that accompanied Indian agencies, along with the annuities that sustained a corrupt system of politicians, businessmen, and traders. The Ojibwe waited two months for the annuities to arrive at Sandy Lake. Flooding damaged the foodstuffs that the traders—ever-present at annuity gatherings—brought with them. While waiting for their treaty goods, many Ojibwe burned their canoes

www.abc-clio.com

433

for firewood and sold their annuities to traders for rancid meat and spoiled supplies. In early December, tribal members received only partial annuities in the form of goods but no cash. Many set out immediately for home, walking because the rivers had frozen over and canoes were useless. Others stayed at Sandy Lake to tend to ill family members. According to oral history accounts, the elders and children died first from sickness and cold. The Ojibwe wrapped scores of bodies in birch bark and placed them on a bank overlooking the frozen lake. When the ground thawed in the spring, they buried many of them at Sandy Lake. Some grieving parents carried the bodies of their children back to their villages for burials. In 1851, when government officials again announced that they would distribute annuity goods at Sandy Lake, most Ojibwe refused to travel there to claim them. The following year, Buffalo traveled to Washington, D.C., and persuaded President Millard Fillmore to rescind the removal order and establish four permanent Ojibwe reservations in Wisconsin. In 2000, tribal officials and representatives of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission erected a memorial at Sandy Lake to commemorate the tragedy. It consists of four hundred stones, one for each of the approximately four hundred Ojibwe who died making the ill-fated journey. The memorial is called Mikwendaagoziwag, or “They Will Not Be Forgotten.” Patricia A. Loew See also Buffalo; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Armstrong, Benjamin. 1892. Early Life Among the Indians. Ashland, WI: Press of A. W. Bowron. Chippewa. 1988. “1865 Statement Made by the Indians: A Bilingual Petition.” In Studies in the Interpretation of Canadian Native American Languages and Cultures, ed. John D. Nichols. London, ON: University of Western Ontario. Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Renewal. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society Press.

Santa Fe, New Mexico Situated in the western foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, Santa Fe has been New Mexico’s political hub and capital for nearly four centuries. The city is in close proximity to the nineteen Pueblo

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

434

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario

villages of the Rio Grande valley and has thus played a key role in relations with the neighboring Indians. The Spanish, Mexican, and American governments may have varied in their respective Indian policies, but they all recognized the utility of Santa Fe’s central location. The Spanish first established La Villa Real de Santa Fe in 1610 on the north bank of the Rio Santa Fe. However, archaeological evidence suggests that the ancestral Pueblo people lived on the site at least a thousand years before the Spanish arrival. The original Pueblo inhabitants moved to other locations, probably because of drought and/or increased raiding by local marauding tribes. The Spanish, nevertheless, saw the site as ideal. Once established, the first Spanish governor of La Provincia de Nuevo Mexico, Pedro de Peralta, immediately set about instituting his Indian policy. Accordingly, the encomienda system granted large tracts of land to Spanish settlers, who required the local Pueblos to pay tribute by giving the settlers a portion of their crops. At the same time, Franciscan missionaries sought to convert the Indians, planting churches in each Pueblo village. Tension between the civil and religious arms of Spanish colonialism mounted through the 1600s as each sought to shape the nature and function of the colony. The Pueblos were caught in the middle of this wrangling, with no voice in the policies that affected them and their homeland. All this changed in 1680. In a carefully planned revolt, eighteen of the nineteen Pueblos rose up and threw off the shackles of Spanish control. It began in Taos Pueblo north of Santa Fe, but soon the entire province was in rebellion. Within days, the capital city was under siege. Governor Antonio Otermín barricaded himself and the city’s populace behind Santa Fe’s walls. What was once a fortress quickly turned into a prison as the Pueblos cut off the city’s food and water supply. Otermín realized that they would have to make a break for it and fight their way to safety. The governor’s plan worked. Spanish forces temporarily staved off the Indians and quickly made their way to Isleta Pueblo—the only village not in rebellion—before heading to El Paso. As they headed south, Santa Fe fell to the rebels, signaling defeat for the Spaniards and their colonial policy. Twelve years later, in 1692, the Spanish returned to New Mexico and once again set up their capital in Santa Fe. This time, however, they recognized Indian land and water rights. Throughout the 1700s, the

www.abc-clio.com

Spanish government gave legal protection to the Pueblos by parceling out and “granting” tracts of land. When Mexico declared its independence from Spain in 1821, the new regime recognized and respected these land grants. Less than thirty years later, when the Americans signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and took control of New Mexico, they, too, honored the Pueblos’ lands as defined by the Spanish the previous century. Yet relations between the Pueblos and the government in Santa Fe were far from ideal. During the Mexican-American War, Indians from Taos Pueblo assassinated the newly installed American governor. Moreover, through much of the nineteenth century, whites ignored the Pueblos’ property titles and settled on their land. The situation was aggravated in 1876 when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Joseph that federal Indian law did not apply to the Pueblos because the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted them citizenship rights. The decision gave the territorial government the power to treat each Pueblo village like any other municipality, leading to further white encroachment. However, in the 1913 case United States v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the earlier verdict, ruling that the Pueblos were indeed wards of the federal government. The decision shifted power from Santa Fe to Washington, D.C.—a decision that has held up to the present. Bradley Shreve See also Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. References and Further Reading Noble, David Grant. 1989. Santa Fe: History of an Ancient City. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Sando, Joe S. 1992. Pueblo Nations: Eight Centuries of Pueblo Indian History. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. Tobias, Henry J., and Charles E. Woodhouse. Santa Fe: A Modern History, 1880–1990. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario The twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie (pronounced soo-saint-marie) are situated at the rapids formed at the outflow of Lake Superior, which fall approximately eighteen feet to the level of Lakes Huron and Michigan. The rapids once constituted North America’s greatest inland fishery, a resource that drew

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario

indigenous people to this region more than 2,500 years ago as the drainage patterns of the Great Lakes took on their present configuration. The oral tradition of the Anishnaabeg tells of their original home as being on the eastern coastal region of what is now the United States and Canada, but disease and suffering compelled them to move from this homeland. A spirit being led them west to the area now know as Sault Ste. Marie (French for “the rapids of the St. Mary’s River”). When they arrived at this place, many decided to settle, but others chose to continue their migration. Using modern geographic designations, those Anishnaabeg we now call the Chippewa (or the Ojibway), while staying in the Sault area, also moved into the areas surrounding Lake Superior in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Manitoba, and Ontario; from the Sault, the Ottawa (or Odawa) moved into the northern Lake Huron area of Ontario, as well as into areas in northern Michigan, especially along the eastern Lake Michigan coast; the third component of the Three Fires People, the Potawatomi, moved farther south into the area of southwestern Michigan, northern Indiana, northeastern Illinois, and southwestern Wisconsin. All of these people consider the Sault their spiritual home; its Anishnaabeg name is Bawating, which some translate as “the gathering place of the People.” The area was first visited by Europeans in the early 1600s, and by 1671 the place had gained such stature that the French, planning a formal ceremony to lay claim to all of North America, staged the Pageant of St. Lusson at the Sault, calling more than a dozen tribes to the area to witness this formal territorial claim. The French also hoped to form alliances with the area’s indigenous peoples. Earlier, in 1668, the French had set up a missionary post there, the date of which is used by some to claim that Sault Ste. Marie is the third-oldest European settlement in the United States. Although the French had established a missionary post in the Sault and had laid formal claim to the area, Sault Ste. Marie essentially remained an indigenous center for the next two centuries, only secondarily becoming an important trading post for furs. The area was too remote to have any direct involvement in the various North American European proxy wars, the American Revolution, or the War of 1812, but warriors from the Sault area were often called upon (by Pontiac, Tecumseh, and others) to defend their Great Lakes homelands, which they did with valor.

www.abc-clio.com

435

The Sault’s remote location also kept the area away from the American and British struggle for control of wide swaths of North American territory until 1820, when Michigan territorial governor Lewis Cass accompanied a group of U.S. officials and soldiers to the Sault to extract a land cession from the Anishnaabeg so that the U.S. government could establish a military post at the rapids. Before this time, the Native people of the area had thought not in terms of “American” or “British” but simply “Indian.” But, despite some serious early difficulties, representatives of the Native inhabitants on both sides of the putative border did make a cession of land, allowing the United States to establish, for the first time, a presence in the area. (It should be noted that the border through the upper St. Mary’s River, with its numerous islands, was not finally established until 1848.) The first shipping lock was built by the state of Michigan in the Sault in 1853, two years before the Ojibway ceded the land where the locks then stood. This Treaty of Washington of 1855 purportedly also ceded to the U.S. government the Natives’ “perpetual” fishing station on the St. Mary’s River, retained by them in the treaty of 1820 mentioned previously. To this day, Native people of the area still dispute the cession of this most important tract of land. Sault Ste. Marie was also the site of other important treaties and councils, notably the British/Canadian Robinson Treaties of 1850. It should be noted that in these Sault area treaties and in many other cases, Native leaders from both sides of the border were involved in negotiating and signing these treaties with both the U.S. and British authorities, and this “cross-border” treaty signing was acknowledged and accepted by all parties. By the mid-nineteenth century, Native military power and influence began its inexorable decline, and by the late 1800s Sault Ste. Marie was seldom referred to as a place of Native significance but more often as a place of burgeoning industrial development. With the completion of a massive hydroelectric power station on the American side, much of the energy (and water) of the rapids was harnessed. This led to the building of a steel mill and a paper plant on the Canadian side. The construction of new locks on both the U.S. and Canadian sides of the rapids and the building of two more hydroelectric generation plants (one for the locks and one on the Canadian side) reduced the flow of the rapids to a mere trickle and destroyed the tremendous fishery as well.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

436

St. Joseph, Michigan

Indians fishing in the rapids, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, c. 1900. (Library of Congress)

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, has a present population of 16,500 (2000 census), and Sault, Ontario, boasts a population of 74,500 (2001 data). Four tribes have reservations in the area: the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay Mills Indian Community are on the American side; the Garden River and Batchewana First Nations hold land on the Canadian side of the border. Phil Bellfy See also Cass, Lewis; Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)– September 7, 1850; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Arbic, Bernard. 2003. City of the Rapids: Sault Ste. Marie’s Heritage. Allegan Forest, MI: Priscilla Press. Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Quimby, George Irving. 1960. Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes: 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

St. Joseph, Michigan Located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in the state of Michigan, the community of St. Joseph and the St. Joseph River had a long association with the Potawatomi, the Miami, fur traders, soldiers, and missionaries. The St. Joseph River winds south into Indiana and then back north into Michigan. It is not to be confused with the St. Joseph River, also in southeastern Michigan, that flows south into Indiana, joining the St. Mary’s River to form the Maumee. These two rivers form closely in southern Michigan. At this site, two significant treaties were negotiated in the late 1820s that forced the removal of hundreds of Potawatomis. Although the first decade of the nineteenth century witnessed a flood of treaties with some land cessions led by William Henry Harrison at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, the years follow-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

St. Louis, Missouri

ing the end of the War of 1812 revealed a rush to force the removal of the remaining bands of Potawatomi from Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. The first of the treaties negotiated at St. Joseph was concluded in September 1827. It sought to consolidate the diverse bands of Potawatomi, to remove them far from white settlement, and to distance them from the Detroit Road to Chicago, which swung south along the shores of Lake Michigan, by relocating them to land reserved for them by the U.S. government. Ninety-nine sections of surveyed land formed the reserve south of the St. Joseph River. Nineteen chiefs signed this treaty, which was ratified on February 23, 1829. The following September, a second treaty was negotiated, known as the Treaty of Carey Mission after a mission at St. Joseph set up by the Baptists. It, too, asked for land cessions. In return, annuities were assigned and trade goods promised. In addition, implements for agriculture and livestock were promised, along with laborers to work for the tribe to get their farming under way. More important, separate land grants were given to people of Indian descent. Many of these grants were assigned to Indian wives of white men or to the half-white, halfIndian children of mixed-race marriages. Some of the grants went to individual chiefs. The location of the mission, which educated the Indian children, became uncertain. The U.S. government made no concrete promises to rebuild or relocate the establishment on the new reserve. Other treaties negotiated at other locations, particularly at Chicago in 1833, differed from former treaties, which had kept the Potawatomi on reserves, to aim for all-out removal from the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Chicago treaty pushed for the destruction of even small reserves. Furthermore, the treaties negotiated in Indiana at places like Tippecanoe insisted on the removal of all Potawatomi to land west of the Mississippi, in particular to Kansas Territory. By 1837, Abel C. Pepper, the U.S. Indian removal agent, sought to remove Potawatomi not only from Illinois and Indiana but also from Michigan—in particular, the St. Joseph Potawatomi. Pokagun and others of the St. Joseph Potawatomi worked to remain on the small reserves that had been assigned to individual members of the tribe. The government could not move them to the west because of the manner in which these lands had been deeded. To this day, descendants of Pokagun and these Potawatomi reside on this land.

www.abc-clio.com

437

The French first arrived on the St. Joseph River about 1679 under the direction of Robert Cavalier LaSalle. They constructed a fort inland along the river to assist in developing trade, first with the Miami, who had settled the area, and, after they moved on, with the Potawatomi. The St. Joseph Potawatomi aligned themselves with Pontiac during his rebellion. They attacked the British and took prisoners. When the British took prisoners from the tribe, the Potawatomi attempted negotiations to get them returned. After long months, the British eventually relented, but not before the St. Joseph Potawatomi distanced themselves from Pontiac. After the end of the French and Indian War, the British built their own fort at the mouth of the river and named it Fort St. Joseph. From here, the British maintained fur trade rights over the St. Joseph band of Potawatomi. Near the end of the American War of Independence, William Burnett of New Jersey came into the St. Joseph River valley to operate a fur trade establishment. He married Kakima, the sister of Topinbee, a Potawatomi chief, creating a lasting alliance. The Burnett family remained a strong presence in the region well into the nineteenth century. Sally Colford Bennett See also Chicago, Illinois; Pokagun; Pontiac; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833; Treaty with the Potawatomi–September 19, 1827; Treaty with the Potawatomi–September 20, 1828. References and Further Reading Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

St. Louis, Missouri Located on the west bank of the Mississippi River just south of the confluence of the Missouri and Illinois rivers, St. Louis was the clashing crossroads of Native American and American culture from the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth. As the trading capital of the “westward country,” St. Louis saw the negotiation of many treaties, which sometimes led to greater conflicts. Beginning in 1804, treaties between the United States and Native

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

438

St. Louis, Missouri

American tribes of the westward country (now the Midwest) were negotiated in St. Louis. The first of these treaties was initiated on November 3, 1804, by Indiana territorial governor William Henry Harrison with the Sac (Sauk) and Fox tribes, who resided in present-day northwestern Illinois. Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of War Henry Dearborn sought by treating to end to the warring between the Sac and Fox and the Osage over hunting land. Harrison did not directly summon the Sac and Fox tribal leaders to St. Louis to discuss a treaty as he had in Indiana Territory with the Miami, Shawnee, Delaware, and Potawatomi. Actually, members of the Sac and Fox had come to the city to turn over one warrior of more than three who were responsible for the murder of American settlers. Showing that he was willing to bargain with them, Harrison arrested the single warrior and let the others go without punitive action. In light of the more favorable situation, Harrison then began to negotiate a treaty with those Sac and Fox present. The agreement stipulated that the Sac and Fox would cease to make war on the Osage; would give up their land on the eastern side of the Mississippi south of the Wisconsin River, east to the Fox River of Illinois, and west and south to the Missouri River; would receive the protection of the United States; and would receive annuities. Although they were allowed to hunt and reside on the land, and the United States assured them that they would be given the full protection of the government against white citizens who sought to “intrude” upon them, the treaty further stipulated that no one could trade in the area with them unless they were licensed by the U.S. government. The government promised to establish a trading factory in the near future, which they did in 1808 with the erection of Fort Madison on the western bank of the Mississippi River, north of the Des Moines River. Five members of the Sac and Fox tribes put their mark to the treaty. It was ratified by Congress on January 25, 1805. When the members of the Sac and Fox returned home and informed their countrymen, the news upset and disturbed the other tribe members. The treaty enraged the warrior Black Hawk, and it continued to infuriate him into the 1830s, as he continued to proclaim that this treaty had stolen their lands. Other treaties followed with the Osage nation, who had been punished by being banned from trading with St. Louis traders. The new governor of the

www.abc-clio.com

Louisiana Territory, Meriwether Lewis, sent William Clark, the territorial superintendent of Indian affairs of all tribes but the Osage, along with an army detachment from Cantonment Bellefontaine led by Captain Eli Clemson of the 1st U.S. Infantry, a detachment of mounted militia, and the St. Charles Dragoons to establish a fort and trading factory on the Missouri River near present-day Kansas City. The northern band of the Osage, who lived by the junction of the Little Osage, Marais des Cygne, and the Marmaton rivers (not to be confused with the southern band, who lived on the Arkansas River), was summoned to meet with Clark, and Clark negotiated a treaty with them. The site of this trading venture had been sighted by the Corps of Discovery members on their trip to the westward country in 1804. Clark and Lewis favored it over a site at the mouth of the Osage River. This site on the Missouri upset the Osage, who now had to permanently move closer to the trading house and garrison rather than have it come to them. Clark returned to St. Louis with the treaty, but the treaty displeased Governor Lewis. First, Clark had drawn a “buffer zone” boundary line between the United States and the Osage that was literally within sight of the Osage villages, meaning they couldn’t venture beyond the outer reaches of their villages. Next, the land cession included all their lands in Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. Other Osage, including the southern or Arkansas band who had not been present during the treaty negotiation at Fort Osage (as the site came to be called, although it was sometimes referred to as Fort Clark), met with Clark and Lewis in St. Louis and voiced their objection to the treaty. Furthermore, they pointed out, the treaty violated Osage political decision making because a majority agreement to it had not been obtained; they therefore declared they had not ceded any territory. Lewis rewrote the treaty to clarify the desires of the United States. He appointed Pierre Chouteau, brother of Auguste, the Indian agent to the southern or Arkansas band of the Osage, and sent him to get the Osage to sign. Upon Chouteau’s return with the signed treaty, Lewis discovered that Chouteau and Mongrain, Chouteau’s interpreter, had written in two land grants to benefit themselves. Lewis struck these out of the treaty, finding it despicable that white men should profit in land from treaty negotiations; he thereafter held a grave opinion of the Chouteaus. Following Lewis’s untimely death, the new governor, Frederick Bates, negotiated additions to open up trade once more

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tippecanoe River, Indiana

with the southern Osage. This treaty with the Osages was finally ratified in 1810. The treaties never sat well with the Osage because the trading house/factory was too far from their homes. Although some of them moved to Fort Osage, by the winter of 1809 they had eventually left and returned to their original villages. It divided them into two parties. Those who stayed thought they were making Clark happy. Those who returned were pleasing Chouteau, who had established his own trading house in their villages. The last time a sizable number of the Osage visited at Fort Osage was in April 1812. This distance from their home villages often left them vulnerable to attack from their enemies—the Iowa, Sac and Fox, and Winnebago. In 1813, William Clark was appointed governor of the newly named Territory of Missouri. In the midst of the War of 1812, his attention was still intensely focused on Indian affairs. Following the end of the war, Clark negotiated more agreements and treaties with diverse tribes in and around St. Louis. In 1818, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun directed Clark to negotiate a treaty to stop the fighting between the Cherokee, Quapaw, and Osage tribes and to acquire millions of acres of land for a pittance of money and goods so that the U.S. government could move Indian tribes residing east of the Mississippi River to the newly acquired lands for resettlement. Both the Osage and the Quapaw signed over large tracts of good lands in Arkansas and Missouri. This would open up those areas for white settlement, much of it on land granted for service in the war of 1812. Although there were other French villages in the area, St. Louis was founded in late December 1764 by Pierre de LeClede Liguest, who had traveled from New Orleans to establish his own trading site and a village. His fourteen-year-old stepson and employee, Auguste Chouteau, accompanied him. Later, Auguste’s brother Pierre joined them. Together they not only built the village and eventually the city of St. Louis but also established a strong foothold in the Indian trade of the Missouri valley. The U.S. government had established a cantonment called Bellefontaine near St. Louis on the Missouri River in 1805. This garrison closed down in 1826 and moved to a new garrison in St. Louis known as Jefferson Barracks, from which military expeditions up the Missouri departed for the West, including some led by General Henry Atkinson. Sally Colford Bennett

www.abc-clio.com

439

See also Black Hawk; Chouteau, Auguste; Clark, William; Dearborn, Henry; Dodge, Henry; Forsyth, Thomas; Harrison, William Henry; Lewis, Meriwether; Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804. References and Further Reading Carter, Clarence E. 1934–1962. The Territorial Papers of the United States, vol. 14, The Territory of Louisiana-Missouri 1806–1814. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Esarey, Logan. 1922. Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison, vol. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission. Foley, William. 1989. The Genesis of Missouri. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Gregg, Kate L., ed. 1937. Westward with the Dragoons: The Journal of William Clark on His Expedition to Establish Fort Osage, August 25 to September 22, 1808. Fulton, MO: Ovid Bell Press. Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jackson, Donald, ed. 1990. Black Hawk, an Autobiography. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Jones, Landon Y. 2004. William Clark and the Shaping of the West. New York: Hill and Wang. Nichols, Roger L. 1992. Black Hawk and the Warrior’s Path. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. Rollings, Willard H. 1992. The Osage: An Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the PrairiePlains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Tippecanoe River, Indiana Meandering through 225 miles of northern Indiana, the Tippecanoe River, which empties into the Wabash River northeast of the city of Lafayette, lends its name to a critical battle in 1811 and a series of treaties of the 1830s between the U.S. government and the Potawatomi of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. This area was once the homeland of the Miami, who gave the river its name, which means “buffalo fish”; but by the mid-eighteenth century, the Potowatomi had moved into the region, making small villages along the river and its streams. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, the Potawatomi, under the leadership of Main Poc, became followers of the Shawnee Prophet, whose village was located in Ohio. The Prophet and his brother, Tecumseh, were anxious to leave the state and find a site more in tune with their ideal of returning to a simpler life that did not depend upon the lifestyle and material possessions of the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

440

Tippecanoe River, Indiana

Americans. In 1808, Main Poc offered them a section of land along the Wabash River where the Tippecanoe entered it. This village, known as Prophetstown, became an object of controversy. The Americans saw it as a threat to their safety and security as more and more diverse tribes flocked to the Prophet to hear his messages. The various tribes found it a place of strength as the Prophet’s brother, Tecumseh, sought to forge all tribes into an alliance against the rising incursion of white settlements, particularly in southern Indiana. With the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, negotiated treaties at Fort Wayne in 1803, at Vincennes in 1805, and again at Fort Wayne in 1809. With each document, the chiefs signed away land, eventually cutting off the tribes from the Ohio River and placing more and more territory under the control of the U.S. government. The Americans already considered the land theirs; it had been signed over to the French in the eighteenth century by the tribes. From there, the land ownership transferred to Great Britain through the defeat of the French in the Seven Years’ War. By the success of the American colonies in the Revolution, the Americans took possession; and the treaty negotiations by Harrison were considered mere formalities to “keep” the peace and make it appear that the land was sold legitimately by the tribes to the Americans. The tribes, not only those along the Tippecanoe River, sided with Tecumseh and the Prophet in declaring that no one chief had the right to sell any land. The brothers and their followers were particularly upset with the Treaty of Fort Wayne of 1809. This particular treaty contributed more to the alienation from and disdain for the United States on the part of the tribes. Although Tecumseh tried to provoke Harrison to reverse the treaty and promise no more land concessions, his efforts were not successful. Tension within the territory increased. Harrison sought aid from the federal government, which in turn sent the 4th U.S. Regiment of Infantry to Vincennes to shore up the 1st U.S. Regiment at Fort Knox (Vincennes). Militia from Kentucky also came to Harrison’s aid. In the fall of 1811, his force advanced up the Wabash toward the Tippecanoe and Prophetstown. The battle began early on the morning of November 7 and resulted in the defeat of the Prophet. The Americans destroyed his village and much of the grain storage. This was not the end of the matter.

www.abc-clio.com

The following summer, the War of 1812 broke out. The tribes aligned themselves with the British against the Americans. At the end of the war, the tribes found themselves in a weak position to negotiate peace with the United States. Hence, the United States came back with treaty after treaty, whittling away at the land long held by the tribes. In the twenty years following the end of the War of 1812, white settlement advanced northward from the Ohio, pushing the tribes into smaller reserves and eventually out of the state entirely. The tribes along the Tippecanoe were no exception to the removal. The treaties of Tippecanoe were fraught with controversy. The first agreement occurred in 1832, the others in 1834 and 1836. First, full-blood tribe members were given reservations, although in some cases chiefs or headmen obtained land of their own. Mixed-blood individuals were allotted actual land grants, giving them private ownership. Offers came to entice, seduce, and encourage the tribe as a whole to emigrate west of the Mississippi River. Such enticements included offers of goods for the journey and farm implements to assist them upon arrival in the “new” land. Last, the treaties became an avenue to instant riches for men involved in the negotiations. The government created a provision wherein the Potawatomi could pay their debts out of annuities. Suddenly, men who in reality owed absolutely nothing presented vouchers before the actual creditors were able to. Because of this practice, there was not enough money left to pay all the debts. The U.S. government soon insisted that the Potawatomi move west. Chief Menominee refused. He had written a letter stating that he had not signed away the land or agreed to removal. Nonetheless, in the late summer of 1838, nearly 860 Potawatomi left their villages to assemble near Twin Lakes, Indiana, for the journey west. They were escorted by one hundred soldiers led by General John Tipton; the tribal leaders, including Menominee, rode imprisoned on a wagon for all to see. The journey began with rudeness and coercion on the part of the Americans. In some cases, wagons were not forthcoming, and some members of the tribe had to leave some of their belongings behind. Soldiers aggressively drove the Potawatomi, many of whom were on foot, along the road. The journey lasted about two months as the tribe went from Indiana, passing by the Tippecanoe battlefield one last time en route to Illinois, crossing over to Missouri at Quincy and moving on

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Vincennes, Indiana

to Kansas, ending at Potawatomi Creek. Thirty-nine died, many of them children and elderly. Sally Colford Bennett See also Battle of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William Henry; Indian Removal; Tecumseh; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809; Vincennes, Indiana. References and Further Reading Dowd, Gregory Evans. 1992. A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745–1815. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota, is the site of a treaty concluded in 1851 in which Dakota bands ceded millions of acres of land to the U.S. government. In exchange for this land concession, the Dakota people were promised annuity payments in perpetuity and a homeland along the Minnesota River. Delivery of annuity payments, however, became increasingly irregular, leading to widespread misery among the Dakota people and, ultimately, to the Dakota Conflict of 1862. Traverse des Sioux is a crossing point on the Minnesota River near present-day St. Peter, Minnesota, long used by the Dakota and by French fur traders in their trade routes and as a meeting place. At this site, on July 23, 1851, leaders of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota ceded twentyfour million acres in what is now Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota. A companion treaty was signed at Mendota, Minnesota, a few days later by leaders of the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute bands. In 1837, Dakota people had ceded all their land east of the Mississippi River to the U.S. government. White settlement had been immediate and intense. By 1851, Little Crow and other Dakota leaders conceded the inevitability of white settlement by exchanging their still-vast land holdings for $300,000 in direct payments and more than $1 million in trust. The trust funds were to be used for yearly annuities payable in gold, food, training, agricultural implements, and other resources. Article 3 of the Treaty of

www.abc-clio.com

441

Traverse des Sioux set aside a strip of land seventy miles long and ten miles wide on each side of the Minnesota River for a reservation. Before all Dakota people had moved to the reservation, however, Article 3 had been stricken out by the U.S. Senate and replaced with a provision for government purchase of the reservation land at ten cents per acre. After skirmishes with white settlers in 1857, the Dakota people were confined to the tenmile strip of land on the south side of the Minnesota River. The loss of land upon which traditional cultural practices depended, the diversion of monetary payments by unscrupulous traders, and the failure of crops in the late 1850s had the effect of making the Dakota people entirely dependent upon food shipments from the federal government. With the onset of the Civil War, annuity payments were delayed or skipped, causing universal hardship among the Dakota people. They attacked white settlements in an attempt to gain back the land ceded in 1851. After a military defeat, all lands were taken from Dakota people, and thirty-eight members of the Mdewakanton band were hung at Mankato, about twenty miles from Traverse de Sioux, in the largest mass execution in U.S. history. Today, the Lower Sioux Agency Indian Reservation (one of four Dakota reservations in Minnesota) is located fifty miles from St. Peter, and an interpretive center at the Traverse des Sioux treaty site is maintained by Nicollet County. Martin Case See also Annuities; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Sioux–Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands–August 5, 1851; Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands–July 23, 1851; Trust; Trust Land. References and Further Reading Anderson, Gary Clayton. 1984. Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 1650–1862. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hurt, Wesley R. 1974. Dakota Sioux Indians. New York: Garland. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Vincennes, Indiana Before the outbreak of the War of 1812, Vincennes, which is located along the east bank of the Wabash River in western Indiana, was the Indiana Territory’s

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

442

Vincennes, Indiana

capital as well as the site of important council and treaty negotiations with the regional tribes. From this location, territorial governor William Henry Harrison carried out his duties to negotiate treaties with tribes in order to obtain land cessions. In 1802, Harrison called a council at Vincennes to determine the ownership of land that became known as the Vincennes Tract. This portion of land was approximately thirty-six miles on both sides and about twenty-five miles north and south of Vincennes. Although no treaty agreement was drawn up Harrison nevertheless concluded that the participants had reached a consensus, and he proceeded to inform President Thomas Jefferson. Following the secret directive of February 1803, in which President Jefferson told Harrison that “the Indians . . . in their interests and their tranquility it is best they should see only the present page of their history,” Harrison called a treaty council to be held at Fort Wayne, an American military garrison located in the northeastern section of the Indiana Territory. Harrison brought along surveyor Thomas Freeman, who had been surveying the tract since 1802, a detachment of U.S. regulars under the command of Lieutenant Nathan Heald to reinforce the garrison in the event of possible unrest during the course of treating, and other territorial dignitaries. Harrison used this council to negotiate and draft a treaty giving the United States ownership of the Vincennes Tract. Citing the 1795 Greenville treaty as the only land cession treaty they intended to follow, chiefs—including Buckongahelas of the Delaware, who walked out in a fury—disagreed over giving any more land to the United States. Other chiefs showed their distrust by not showing up at all. Eventually, Harrison got his treaty on June 7, 1803, through the efforts and influence of Fort Wayne Indian agent William Wells and Wells’s father-in-law, Little Turtle of the Miami. Later, in August of that year, Harrison met with leaders of the Kaskaskia Nation to receive ownership of their lands in Illinois in exchange for increasing their annuities and taking them under the protection of the U.S. government. On the same day, Harrison also set an agreement with the Eel River Miami for narrow sections of one acre on a proposed route for overland travel, as well as for the establishment of “houses of entertainment” (inns and taverns) and ferries as needed— between Vincennes and the village of Kaskaskia and from Vincennes to Clarksville along the Ohio River. In the autumn of 1804, at Vincennes, Harrison treated with the Delaware and the Piankashaw for

www.abc-clio.com

the purpose of obtaining more land, particularly the vast acres below the Vincennes Tract running southeast along the Ohio River towards Clarksville. Upset, the Miami insisted that Harrison should have included them; as they had allowed the Delaware to reside in lands belonging to them, therefore they ought to be involved. In addition to the Miami complaint, that winter the Delaware reversed their support of the land transaction because, according to them, Harrison had seduced them by offering instruction in farming and domestic arts as well as supplies to make them more self-sustaining and increased their annuities to induce their agreement. So, in August 1805, Harrison met again with the Delaware as well as the Miami, the Eel River Miami, the Potawatomi, and the Wea at Vincennes in particular, on the lands of his estate just north of the village. There, they all came to agreement over ceding and relinquishing forever the land south of the Vincennes Tract, which was the subject of the treaty of 1804. For this act came increases in annuities. One outcome of this agreement was the establishment in writing that the Miami, Eel River, and Wea all considered themselves members who had lands in common, not separate entities able to negotiate away the lands of the other. The treaty further stated that they as a whole were the rightful owners of lands above the Vincennes Tract and on the Wabash not ceded to the United States. For this, these tribes, plus the Potawatomi, agreed that the Delaware had the right to sell the land south of the Vincennes Tract. More treaties followed; by 1809, the tribes were essentially landlocked from the Ohio River. White settlers moved onto the newly acquired lands. In the meantime, these treaties did not sit well with many tribes. While they fought over who owned lands, Tecumseh, the Shawnee leader, urged them to see land ownership as collective—that all tribes owned all the land, and no one chief had the right to sell it off to the United States. Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet, were especially incensed over the Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809, so much so that Tecumseh paid a call on Harrison at Vincennes in 1810. Tecumseh tried to provoke Harrison, but to no avail. Harrison stood firm against reversing any treaties, and more would come in the future. In the autumn of 1811, it was from Vincennes that Harrison launched and returned from his campaign up the Wabash against the Prophet’s town near Tippecanoe. Vincennes was founded in 1732 by Le Sieur de Vincennes, commander of the garrison he established. French settlement continued into the British

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Wabash River, Indiana

era following the French and Indian Wars. French residents not infrequently intermarried with the Native Americans in the region, building not only family bonds but commercial ventures of the fur trade. During the American period, following the takeover of the city by George Rogers Clark, the Americans established Fort Knox. Later, with the encouragement of Harrison, Fort Knox was moved upriver about two miles from town to enable better oversight of river traffic and to relieve the town of the difficulties of soldiers on leave. When the war seemed likely, Harrison urged the garrison to return to the village. Sally Colford Bennett See also Battle of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William Henry; Jefferson, Thomas; Tecumseh; Treaty with the Delaware–August 18, 1804; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–August 21, 1805; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Piankeshaw–August 27, 1804; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Wabash River, Indiana; Wells, William. References and Further Reading Esarey, Logan, ed. 1922. Governor’s Messages and Letters: Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison, vol. I. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Collections. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Woehrmann, Paul. 1971. At the Headwaters of the Maumee, a History of the Forts of Fort Wayne. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society.

Wabash River, Indiana Running west-southwest nearly five hundred miles from the middle of the state of Indiana to the south, where it empties into the Ohio River, the Wabash River gave title to treaties in 1826, 1828, 1834, 1838, and 1840 that eventually forced the removal of the Miami nation from Indiana. The Miami, who settled along the tributaries in the late seventeenth century and gave the Wabash its name, ceded land to the United States, which by 1830 had caused the Miami to retreat to a smaller reserve near Logansport. In return, the Miami received money and goods. Some Miami and mixed-blood Miami received individual land grants, giving them private ownership of smaller sections. With the Treaty of the Forks of the

www.abc-clio.com

443

Wabash in 1840, the Miami ceded the last of the tracts of their land south of the Wabash and were encouraged to migrate to the Kansas Territory. As a water highway for centuries, the Wabash witnessed the intrusion first of French, then of British, and later of American traders. The Wabash provided a portage between its forks and the Miami village known as Kekionga, modern Fort Wayne, Indiana, where the St. Joseph and St. Mary rivers join to form the Maumee, which empties into Lake Erie. This portage allowed for nearly continuous travel from Canadian cities in the north to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. After the American Revolution, in 1787 the United States laid claim to the region and established Fort Knox at Vincennes along the banks of the Wabash. During these years, the Wabash Confederacy played an important role as white settlers came to the region. The Confederacy consisted of the Wea and the Piankashaw and also the Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Eel River tribes. The Miami figured prominently in the Wabash region, where they had established villages on the Eel, Mississinewa, Tippecanoe, and Vermilion rivers. A powerful band of warriors, the Miami feared incursions of Americans on their land and raided American settlements in Kentucky, Ohio, and southern Indiana in the 1780s and early 1790s. Influential leaders brought prominence to the tribe in the late eighteenth century and the early decades of the nineteenth century, most notably Chief Little Turtle, who saw that the coming influx of U.S. settlers could not be stopped despite the Indians’ making war on them. After the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Little Turtle and other tribal leaders capitulated, signing the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. In the following decade, as the rise of the Shawnee Prophet took hold of the younger generation of Miami, Little Turtle could not persuade them to keep peace with the Americans. He died as the War of 1812 broke out; he did not live to see its devastating effects on his people and their lands. Much of the activity that contributed to the War of 1812 in the West occurred along the Wabash River. The land around the juncture of the Wabash and the Tippecanoe rivers was claimed by the Potawatomi under the leadership of Main Poc. It was he who offered to have the Shawnee Prophet (who was Tecumseh’s brother and was also known as Tenskwatawa) and his followers settled there instead of remaining at their ever more crowded village near Greenville, Ohio. In 1808, the Shawnee Prophet established his village, known as Prophetstown, on

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

444

Wabash River, Indiana

the Wabash near the Tippecanoe River. He saw the village as a place where his followers could remain apart from the encroaching Americans, for many tribal nations—including the Potawatomi, the Shawnee, and some Miami—objected to the land acquisition treaties pushed upon them by William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, during the first decade of the nineteenth century. Particularly aggravating to Tecumseh was the 1809 treaty at Fort Wayne. This treaty allowed large sections of land along the Wabash and north of Vincennes to come into the hands of the United States. The succession of treaties from 1803 through 1809 had essentially landlocked the tribes, cutting off access to the Ohio River and the state of Kentucky, creating a buffer between the tribes and the growing white settlement. Although many Miami sided with their own leaders, some found the message of the Shawnee brothers more promising. Governor Harrison was concerned about the increasing concentration of warriors at Prophetstown, and his spies returned with false reports that the Prophet’s influence was waning. In the summer of 1810, Harrison sent his own interpreter, Joseph Barron, to warn the Prophet of the strength of the U.S. Army and the militia. Neither deterred nor intimidated, Tecumseh came down the Wabash and arrived at Vincennes in August, accompanied by armed warriors. At first, he tried to reason with the governor by outlining his intention to form a confederation of tribes; he explained that it was essential to hold secure individual tribal lands and to have no more land cessions, that he objected to and would continue to reject the recent treaty at Fort Wayne until Harrison rescinded the treaty. During his weeklong council with Harrison, Tecumseh tried to make his point, but to no avail. Though Harrison offered to relay Tecumseh’s concerns to President Madison, little more would be done. As tensions increased in the Indiana Territory in 1811, the U.S. government sent the 4th Regiment

www.abc-clio.com

of U.S. Infantry to shore up the defenses. In the course of Governor William Henry Harrison’s autumn campaign against the Shawnee Prophet, the United States established another garrison, known as Fort Harrison, farther up the Wabash River at present-day Terre Haute, Indiana. The line of march to Prophetstown was along the Wabash. Combining U.S. regulars and militia forces from Kentucky and Indiana, the Battle of Tippecanoe took place in the early morning of November 7, 1811, not far from the Wabash. Though it began with a surprise attack by the combined native forces, the U.S. forces won the battle, going on to destroy the nearby village. When the War of 1812 began, many tribes along the Wabash supported the British. Following the war, this disaffection with the United States contributed to the push for land cessions, then for an instate reservation, and finally for total removal to Kansas Territory. Sally Colford Bennett

ABC-CLIO

See also Battle of Fallen Timbersm 1794; Battle of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William Henry; Tecumseh; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Vincennes, Indiana; Wells, William. References and Further Readings Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Edmunds, R. David. 1984. Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership. The Library of American Biography, ed. Oscar Handlin. Boston: Little, Brown. Rafert, Stewart. 1996. The Miami Indians of Indiana: A Persistent People 1654–1994. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. Sugden, John. 1997. Tecumseh, A Life. New York: Henry Holt. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Primary Source Documents Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 Treaty with the Creeks, 1832 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 Treaty of Chicago, 1834 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842 Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850 Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Yakima, 1855 Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867 Treaty with the Navajo, 1868 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 Treaties 1 and 2, 1871 Treaty 3, 1871 Treaty 4, 1874 Treaty 5, 1875 Treaty 6, 1876 Treaty 7, 1877 Treaty 8, 1899 Treaty 9, 1905 Treaty 10, 1906 Treaty 11, 1922 Williams Treaties, 1923

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

449 450 451 454 456 459 464 468 476 478 480 483 491 493 495 498 500 502 507 510 513 518 522 527 538 542 550 552 556 559 566 573 581 595 598 603 607 612 622 627

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 Sept. 17, 1778. | 7 Stat., 13. Articles of agreement and confederation, made and entered into by Andrew and Thomas Lewis, Esquires, Commissioners for, and in Behalf of the United States of North-America of the one Part, and Capt. White Eyes, Capt. John Kill Buck, Junior, and Capt. Pipe, Deputies and Chief Men of the Delaware Nation of the other Part. ARTICLE 1. That all offences or acts of hostilities by one, or either of the contracting parties against the other, be mutually forgiven, and buried in the depth of oblivion, never more to be had in remembrance. ARTICLE 2. That a perpetual peace and friendship shall from henceforth take place, and subsist between the contracting parties aforesaid, through all succeeding generations: and if either of the parties are engaged in a just and necessary war with any other nation or nations, that then each shall assist the other in due proportion to their abilities, till their enemies are brought to reasonable terms of accommodation: and that if either of them shall discover any hostile designs forming against the other, they shall give the earliest notice thereof, that timeous measures may be taken to prevent their ill effect. ARTICLE 3. And whereas the United States are engaged in a just and necessary war, in defence and support of life, liberty and independence, against the King of England and his adherents, and as said King is yet possessed of several posts and forts on the lakes and other places, the reduction of which is of great importance to the peace and security of the contracting parties, and as the most practicable way for the troops of the United States to some of the posts and forts is by passing through the country of the Delaware nation, the aforesaid deputies, on behalf of themselves and their nation, do hereby stipulate and agree to give a free passage through their country to the troops aforesaid, and the same to conduct by the nearest and best ways to the posts, forts or towns of the enemies of the United States, affording to said troops such supplies of corn, meat, horses, or whatever may be in their power for the accommodation of such troops, on the commanding officer’s, &c. paying, or engageing to pay, the full value of whatever they can supply

www.abc-clio.com

449

them with. And the said deputies, on the behalf of their nation, engage to join the troops of the United States aforesaid, with such a number of their best and most expert warriors as they can spare, consistent with their own safety, and act in concert with them; and for the better security of the old men, women and children of the aforesaid nation, whilst their warriors are engaged against the common enemy, it is agreed on the part of the United States, that a fort of sufficient strength and capacity be built at the expense of the said States, with such assistance as it may be in the power of the said Delaware Nation to give, in the most convenient place, and advantageous situation, as shall be agreed on by the commanding officer of the troops aforesaid, with the advice and concurrence of the deputies of the aforesaid Delaware Nation, which fort shall be garrisoned by such a number of the troops of the United States, as the commanding officer can spare for the present, and hereafter by such numbers, as the wise men of the United States in council, shall think most conducive to the common good. ARTICLE 4. For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties, against all infractions of the same by the citizens of either party, to the prejudice of the other, neither party shall proceed to the infliction of punishments on the citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the offender or offenders by imprisonment, or any other competent means, till a fair and impartial trial can be had by judges or juries of both parties, as near as can be to the laws, customs and usages of the contracting parties and natural justice: The mode of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States in Congress assembled, with the assistance of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants or slaves, but the same to apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or States, to which such enemies, criminals, servants or slaves respectively belong. ARTICLE 5. Whereas the confederation entered into by the Delaware nation and the United States, renders the first dependent on the latter for all the articles

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

450

Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784

of clothing, utensils and implements of war, and it is judged not only reasonable, but indispensably necessary, that the aforesaid Nation be supplied with such articles from time to time, as far as the United States may have it in their power, by a well-regulated trade, under the conduct of an intelligent, candid agent, with an adequate salary, one more influenced by the love of his country, and a constant attention to the duties of his department by promoting the common interest, than the sinister purposes of converting and binding all the duties of his office to his private emolument: Convinced of the necessity of such measures, the Commissioners of the United States, at the earnest solicitation of the deputies aforesaid, have engaged in behalf of the United States, that such a trade shall be afforded said nation, conducted on such principles of mutual interest as the wisdom of the United States in Congress assembled shall think most conducive to adopt for their mutual convenience. ARTICLE 6. Whereas the enemies of the United States have endeavored, by every artifice in their power, to possess the Indians in general with an opinion, that it is the design of the States aforesaid, to extirpate the Indians and take possession of their country: to obviate such false suggestion, the United States do engage to guarantee to the aforesaid nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner, as it hath been bounded by former treaties, as long as they the said Delaware nation shall abide by, and hold fast the chain of friendship now entered into. And it is further agreed on between the contracting parties should it for the future be found conducive for the mutual interest of both parties to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress: Provided, nothing contained in this article to be considered as conclusive until it meets with the approbation of Congress. And it is also the intent and meaning of this article, that no protection or countenance shall be afforded to any who are at present our enemies, by which they might escape the punishment they deserve. In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals, at Fort Pitt,

www.abc-clio.com

September seventeenth, anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight. Andrew Lewis, [L. S.], Thomas Lewis, [L. S.], White Eyes, his x mark, [L. S.], The Pipe, his x mark, [L. S.], John Kill Buck, his x mark, [L. S.]. In presence of— Lach’n McIntosh, brigadier-general, commander the Western Department, Daniel Brodhead, colonel Eighth Pennsylvania Regiment, W. Crawford, colonel, John Campbell, John Stephenson, John Gibson, colonel Thirteenth Virginia Regiment, A. Graham, brigade major, Lach. McIntosh, Jr., major brigade, Benjamin Mills, Joseph L. Finley, captain Eighth Pennsylvania Regiment, John Finley, captain Eighth Pennsylvania Regiment.

Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784 ARTICLE 1 Six hostages shall be immediately delivered to the commissioners by the said nations, to remain in possession of the United States, till all prisoners, white and black, which were taken by the said Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and Cayugas, or by any of them, in the late war, from among the people of the United States, shall be delivered up. ARTICLE 2 The Oneida and Tuscarora nations shall be secured in the possession of the lands on which there are settled. ARTICLE 3 A line shall be drawn, beginning at the mouth of a creek about four miles east of Niagara, called Oyonwayea, or Johnston’s Landing-Place, upon the lake named by the Indians Oswego, and by us Ontario; from thence southerly in a direction always four miles east of the carrying-path, between Lake

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785

Erie and Ontario, to the mouth of Tehoseroron or Buffaloe Creek on Lake Erie; then south to the north boundary of the state of Pennsylvania; thence west to the end of the said north boundary; then south along the west boundary of the said state, to the river Ohio; the said land from the mouth of the Oyonwayea to the Ohio, shall be the western boundary of the lands of the Six Nations, so that the Six Nations shall and do yield to the United States, all claims to the country west of the said boundary, and then they shall be secured in the peaceful possession of the lands they inhabit east and north of the same, reserving only six miles square round the fort of Oswego, to the United States, for the support of the same. ARTICLE 4 The Commissioners of the United States, in consideration of the present circumstances of the Six Nations, and in executing of the humane and liberal views of the United States upon the signing of the above articles, will order goods to be delivered to the said Six Nations for their use and comfort. Oliver Wolcott Richard Butler Arthur Lee Mohawks: Onogwendahonji, his x mark Touighnatogon, his x mark Onondagas: Oheadarighton, his x mark Kendarindgon, his x mark Senekas: Tayagonendagighti, his x mark Tehonwaeaghrigagi, his x mark Oneidas: Otyadonenghti, his x mark Dagaheari, his x mark Cayuga: Oraghgoanendagen, his x mark Tuscaroras: Ononghsawenghti, his x mark, Tharondawagon, his x mark Seneka Abeal: Kayenthoghke, his x mark

www.abc-clio.com

451

Witness: Sam. Jo. Atlee James Dean Wm. Maclay Saml. Montgomery Fras. Johnston Derick Lane, captain Pennsylvaina Commissioners John Mercer, lieutenant Aaron Hill William Pennington, lieutenant Alexander Campbell Mahlon Hord, ensign Saml. Kirkland, missionary Haugh Peeles

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 Nov. 28, 1785. | 7 Stat., 18. Articles concluded at Hopewell, on the Keowee, between Benjamin Hawkins, Andrew Pickens, Joseph Martin, and Lachlan M’Intosh, Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, of the one Part, and the Head-Men and Warriors of all the Cherokees of the other. The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States, in Congress assembled, give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and protection of the United States of America, on the following conditions: ARTICLE 1. The Head-Men and Warriors of all the Cherokees shall restore all the prisoners, citizens of the United States, or subjects of their allies, to their entire liberty: They shall also restore all the Negroes, and all other property taken during the late war from the citizens, to such person, and at such time and place, as the Commissioners shall appoint. ARTICLE 2. The Commissioners of the United States in Congress assembled, shall restore all the prisoners taken from the Indians, during the late war, to the Head-Men and Warriors of the Cherokees, as early as is practicable. ARTICLE 3. The said Indians for themselves and their respective tribes and towns do acknowledge all the Cherokees

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

452

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785

to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever. ARTICLE 4. The boundary allotted to the Cherokees for their hunting grounds, between the said Indians and the citizens of the United States, within the limits of the United States of America, is, and shall be the following, viz. Beginning at the mouth of Duck river, on the Tennessee; thence running north-east to the ridge dividing the waters running into Cumberland from those running into the Tennessee; thence eastwardly along the said ridge to a northeast line to be run, which shall strike the river Cumberland forty miles above Nashville; thence along the said line to the river; thence up the said river to the ford where the Kentucky road crosses the river; thence to Campbell’s line, near Cumberland gap; thence to the mouth of Claud’s creek on Holstein; thence to the Chimney-top mountain; thence to Camp-creek, near the mouth of Big Limestone, on Nolichuckey; thence a southerly course six miles to a mountain; thence south to the NorthCarolina line; thence to the South-Carolina Indian boundary, and along the same south-west over the top of the Oconee mountain till it shall strike Tugaloo river; thence a direct line to the top of the Currohee mountain; thence to the head of the south fork of Oconee river. ARTICLE 5. If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall attempt to settle on any of the lands westward or southward of the said boundary which are hereby allotted to the Indians for their hunting grounds, or having already settled and will not remove from the same within six months after the ratification of this treaty, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him or not as they please: Provided nevertheless, That this article shall not extend to the people settled between the fork of French Broad and Holstein rivers, whose particular situation shall be transmitted to the United States in Congress assembled for their decision thereon, which the Indians agree to abide by. ARTICLE 6. If any Indian or Indians, or person residing among them, or who shall take refuge in their nation, shall commit a robbery, or murder, or other capital crime, on any citizen of the United States, or person under

www.abc-clio.com

their protection, the nation, or the tribe to which such offender or offenders may belong, shall be bound to deliver him or them up to be punished according to the ordinances of the United States; Provided, that the punishment shall not be greater than if the robbery or murder, or other capital crime had been committed by a citizen on a citizen. ARTICLE 7. If any citizen of the United States, or person under their protection, shall commit a robbery or murder, or other capital crime, on any Indian, such offender or offenders shall be punished in the same manner as if the murder or robbery, or other capital crime, had been committed on a citizen of the United States; and the punishment shall be in presence of some of the Cherokees, if any shall attend at the time and place, and that they may have an opportunity so to do, due notice of the time of such intended punishment shall be sent to some one of the tribes. ARTICLE 8. It is understood that the punishment of the innocent under the idea of retaliation, is unjust, and shall not be practiced on either side, except where there is a manifest violation of this treaty; and then it shall be preceded first by a demand of justice, and if refused, then by a declaration of hostilities. ARTICLE 9. For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part of the citizens or Indians, the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they think proper. ARTICLE 10. Until the pleasure of Congress be known, respecting the ninth article, all traders, citizens of the United States, shall have liberty to go to any of the tribes or towns of the Cherokees to trade with them, and they shall be protected in their persons and property, and kindly treated. ARTICLE 11. The said Indians shall give notice to the citizens of the United States, of any designs which they may know or suspect to be formed in any neighboring tribe, or by any person whosoever, against the peace, trade or interest of the United States.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785

ARTICLE 12. That the Indians may have full confidence in the justice of the United States, respecting their interests, they shall have the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress. ARTICLE 13. The hatchet shall be forever buried, and the peace given by the United States, and friendship reestablished between the said states on the one part, and all the Cherokees on the other, shall be universal; and the contracting parties shall use their utmost endeavors to maintain the peace given as aforesaid, and friendship re-established. In witness of all and every thing herein determined, between the United States of America and all the Cherokees, we, their underwritten Commissioners, by virtue of our full powers, have signed this definitive treaty, and have caused our seals to be hereunto affixed. Done at Hopewell, on the Keowee, this twenty-eighth of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five. Benjamin Hawkins, [L. S.], And’w Pickens, [L. S.], Jos. Martin, [L. S.], Lach’n McIntosh Koatohee, or Corn Tassel of Toquo, his x mark, [L. S.], Scholauetta, or Hanging Man of Chota, his x mark, [L. S.], Tuskegatahu, or Long Fellow of Chistohoe, his x mark, [L. S.], Ooskwha, or Abraham of Chilkowa, his x mark, [L. S.], Kolakusta, or Prince of Noth, his x mark, [L. S.], Newota, or the Gritzs of Chicamaga, his x mark, [L. S.], Konatota, or the Rising Fawn of Highwassay, his x mark, [L. S.], Tuckasee, or Young Terrapin of Allajoy, his x mark, [L. S.], Toostaka, or the Waker of Oostanawa, his x mark, [L. S.], Untoola, or Gun Rod of Seteco, his x mark, [L. S.], Unsuokanail, Buffalo White Calf New Cussee, his x mark, [L. S.], Kostayeak, or Sharp Fellow Wataga, his x mark, [L. S.], Chonosta, of Cowe, his x mark, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

453

Chescoonwho, Bird in Close of Tomotlug, his x mark, [L. S.], Tuckasee, or Terrapin of Hightowa, his x mark, [L. S.], Chesetoa, or the Rabbit of Tlacoa, his x mark, [L. S.], Chesecotetona, or Yellow Bird of the Pine Log, his x mark, [L. S.], Sketaloska, Second Man of Tillico, his x mark, [L. S.], Chokasatahe, Chickasaw Killer Tasonta, his x mark, [L. S.], Onanoota, of Koosoate, his x mark, [L. S.], Ookoseta, or Sower Mush of Kooloque, his x mark, [L. S.], Umatooetha, the Water Hunter Choikamawga, his x mark, [L. S.], Wyuka, of Lookout Mountain, his x mark, [L. S.], Tulco, or Tom of Chatuga, his x mark, [L. S.], Will, of Akoha, his x mark, [L. S.], Necatee, of Sawta, his x mark, [L. S.], Amokontakona, Kutcloa, his x mark, [L. S.], Kowetatahee, in Frog Town, his x mark, [L. S.], Keukuck, Talcoa, his x mark, [L. S.], Tulatiska, of Chaway, his x mark, [L. S.], Wooaluka, the Waylayer, Chota, his x mark, [L. S.], Tatliusta, or Porpoise of Tilassi, his x mark, [L. S.], John, of Little Tallico, his x mark, [L. S.], Skeleak, his x mark, [L. S.], Akonoluchta, the Cabin, his x mark, [L. S.], Cheanoka, of Kawetakac, his x mark, [L. S.], Yellow Bird, his x mark, [L. S.]. Witness: Wm. Blount, Sam’l Taylor, Major, John Owen, Jess. Walton, Jno. Cowan, capt. comm’d’t, Thos. Gregg, W. Hazzard, James Madison, Arthur Cooley, Sworn interpreters.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

454

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

ARTICLE 1. Peace and friendship are hereby firmly established, and shall be perpetual, between the United States and the Six Nations.

from that fork, continuing the same straight course, to that river; (this line, from the mouth of O-yongwong-yeh Creek to the river Niagara, above fort Schlosser, being the eastern boundary of a strip of land, extending from the same line to Niagara river, which the Seneka nation ceded to the King of GreatBritain, at a treaty held about thirty years ago, with Sir William Johnson;) then the line runs along the river Niagara to Lake Erie; then along Lake Erie to the north-east corner of a triangular piece of land which the United States conveyed to the state of Pennsylvania, as by the President’s patent, dated the third day of March, 1792; then due south to the northern boundary of that state; then due east to the south-west corner of the land sold by the Seneka nation to Oliver Phelps; and then north and northerly, along Phelps’s line, to the place of beginning on Lake Ontario. Now, the United States acknowledge all the land within the aforementioned boundaries, to be the property of the Seneka nation; and the United States will never claim the same, nor disturb the Seneka nation, nor any of the Six Nations, or of their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof: but it shall remain theirs, until they choose to sell the same to the people of the United States, who have the right to purchase.

ARTICLE 2. The United States acknowledge the lands reserved to the Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga Nations, in their respective treaties with the state of New-York, and called their reservations, to be their property; and the United States will never claim the same, nor disturb them or either of the Six Nations, nor their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof: but the said reservations shall remain theirs, until they choose to sell the same to the people of the United States, who have the right to purchase.

ARTICLE 4. The United States having thus described and acknowledged what lands belong to the Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senekas, and engaged never to claim the same, nor to disturb them, or any of the Six Nations, or their Indian friends residing thereon and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof: Now, the Six Nations, and each of them, hereby engage that they will never claim any other lands within the boundaries of the United States; nor ever disturb the people of the United States in the free use and enjoyment thereof.

ARTICLE 3. The land of the Seneka nation is bounded as follows: Beginning on Lake Ontario, at the north-west corner of the land they sold to Oliver Phelps, the line runs westerly along the lake, as far as O-yong-wong-yeh Creek, at Johnson’s Landing-place, about four miles eastward from the fort of Niagara; then southerly up that creek to its main fork, then straight to the main fork of Stedman’s creek, which empties into the river Niagara, above fort Schlosser, and then onward,

ARTICLE 5. The Seneka nation, all others of the Six Nations concurring, cede to the United States the right of making a wagon road from Fort Schlosser to Lake Erie, as far south as Buffaloe Creek; and the people of the United States shall have the free and undisturbed use of this road, for the purposes of travelling and transportation. And the Six Nations, and each of them, will forever allow to the people of the United States, a free passage through their lands, and the

Nov. 11, 1794. | 7 Stat., 44. | Proclamation, Jan. 21, 1795. A Treaty between the United States of America, and the Tribes of Indians called the Six Nations. The President of the United States having determined to hold a conference with the Six Nations of Indians, for the purpose of removing from their minds all causes of complaint, and establishing a firm and permanent friendship with them; and Timothy Pickering being appointed sole agent for that purpose; and the agent having met and conferred with the Sachems, Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations, in a general council: Now, in order to accomplish the good design of this conference, the parties have agreed on the following articles; which, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall be binding on them and the Six Nations.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

free use of the harbors and rivers adjoining and within their respective tracts of land, for the passing and securing of vessels and boats, and liberty to land their cargoes where necessary for their safety. ARTICLE 6. In consideration of the peace and friendship hereby established, and of the engagements entered into by the Six Nations; and because the United States desire, with humanity and kindness, to contribute to their comfortable support; and to render the peace and friendship hereby established, strong and perpetual; the United States now deliver to the Six Nations, and the Indians of the other nations residing among and united with them, a quantity of goods of the value of ten thousand dollars. And for the same considerations, and with a view to promote the future welfare of the Six Nations, and of their Indian friends aforesaid, the United States will add the sum of three thousand dollars to the one thousand five hundred dollars, heretofore allowed them by an article ratified by the President, on the twentythird day of April, 1792; a making in the whole, four thousand five hundred dollars; which shall be expended yearly forever, in purchasing clothing, domestic animals, implements of husbandry, and other utensils suited to their circumstances, and in compensating useful artificers, who shall reside with or near them, and be employed for their benefit. The immediate application of the whole annual allowance now stipulated, to be made by the superintendent appointed by the President for the affairs of the Six Nations, and their Indian friends aforesaid. ARTICLE 7. Lest the firm peace and friendship now established should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals, the United States and Six Nations agree, that for injuries done by individuals on either side, no private revenge or retaliation shall take place; but, instead thereof, complaint shall be made by the party injured, to the other: By the Six Nations or any of them, to the President of the United States, or the Superintendent by him appointed: and by the Superintendent, or other person appointed by the President, to the principal chiefs of the Six Nations, or of the nation to which the offender belongs: and such prudent measures shall then be pursued as shall be necessary to preserve our peace and friendship unbroken; until the legislature (or great council) of the

www.abc-clio.com

455

United States shall make other equitable provision for the purpose. NOTE. It is clearly understood by the parties to this treaty, that the annuity stipulated in the sixth article, is to be applied to the benefit of such of the Six Nations and of their Indian friends united with them as aforesaid, as do or shall reside within the boundaries of the United States: For the United States do not interfere with nations, tribes or families, of Indians elsewhere resident. In witness whereof, the said Timothy Pickering, and the sachems and war chiefs of the said Six Nations, have hereto set their hands and seals. Done at Konondaigua, in the State of New York, the eleventh day of November, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four. Timothy Pickering, [L. S.], Onoyeahnee, his x mark, [L. S.], Konneatorteeooh, his x mark, or Handsome Lake, [L. S.], Tokenhyouhau, his x mark, alias Captain Key, [L. S.], Oneshauee, his x mark, [L. S.], Hendrick Aupaumut, [L. S.], David Neesoonhuk, his x mark, [L. S.], Kanatsoyh, alias Nicholas Kusik, [L. S.], Sohhonteoquent, his x mark, [L. S.], Ooduhtsait, his x mark, [L. S.], Konoohqung, his x mark, [L. S.], Tossonggaulolus, his x mark, [L. S.], John Skenendoa, his x mark, [L. S.], Oneatorleeooh, his x mark, [L. S.], Kussauwatau, his x mark, [L. S.], Eyootenyootauook, his x mark, [L. S.], Kohnyeaugong, his x mark, alias Jake Stroud, [L. S.], Shaguiesa, his x mark, [L. S.], Teeroos, his x mark, alias Captain Prantup, [L. S.], Sooshaoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], Henry Young Brant, his x mark, [L. S.], Sonhyoowauna, his x mark, or Big Sky, [L. S.], Onaahhah, his x mark, [L. S.], Hotoshahenh, his x mark, [L. S.], Kaukondanaiya, his x mark, [L. S.], Nondiyauka, his x mark, [L. S.], Kossishtowau, his x mark, [L. S.], Oojaugenta, his x mark, or Fish Carrier, [L. S.],

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

456

Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804

Toheonggo, his x mark, [L. S.], Ootaguasso, his x mark, [L. S.], Joonondauwaonch, his x mark, [L. S.], Kiyauhaonh, his x mark, [L. S.], Ootaujeaugenh, his x mark, or Broken Axe, [L. S.], Tauhoondos, his x mark, or Open the Way, [L. S.], Twaukewasha, his x mark, [L. S.], Sequidongquee, his x mark, alias Little Beard, [L. S.], Kodjeote, his x mark, or Half Town, [L. S.], Kenjauaugus, his x mark, or Stinking Fish, [L. S.], Soonohquaukau, his x mark, [L. S.], Twenniyana, his x mark, [L. S.], Jishkaaga, his x mark, or Green Grasshopper, alias Little Billy, [L. S.], Tuggehshotta, his x mark, [L. S.], Tehongyagauna, his x mark, [L. S.], Tehongyoowush, his x mark, [L. S.], Konneyoowesot, his x mark, [L. S.], Tioohquottakauna, his x mark, or Woods on Fire, [L. S.], Taoundaudeesh, his x mark, [L. S.], Honayawus, his x mark, alias Farmer’s Brother, [L. S.], Soggooyawauthau, his x mark, alias Red Jacket, [L. S.], Konyootiayoo, his x mark, [L. S.], Sauhtakaongyees, his x mark, or Two Skies of a length, [L. S.], Ounnashattakau, his x mark, [L. S.], Kaungyanehquee, his x mark, [L. S.], Sooayoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], Kaujeagaonh, his x mark, or Heap of Dogs, [L. S.], Soonoohshoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], Thaoowaunias, his x mark, [L. S.], Soonongjoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], Kiantwhauka, his x mark, alias Cornplanter, [L. S.] Kaunehshonggoo, his x mark, [L. S.]. Witnesses: Israel Chapin, William Shepard, jr., James Smedley, John Wickham, Augustus Porter, James K. Garnsey, William Ewing,

www.abc-clio.com

Israel Chapin, jr., Horatio Jones, Joseph Smith, Jasper Parish. Interpreters. Henry Abeele.

Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804 Nov. 3, 1804. | 7 Stat., 84. | Ratified Jan. 25, 1805. | Proclaimed Feb. 21, 1805. A treaty between the United States of America and the United tribes of Sac and Fox Indians. ARTICLES of a treaty made at St. Louis in the district of Louisiana between William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana territory and of the district of Louisiana, superintendent of Indian affairs for the said territory and district, and commissioner plenipotentiary of the United States for concluding any treaty or treaties which may be found necessary with any of the north western tribes of Indians of the one part, and the chiefs and head men of the united Sac and Fox tribes of the other part. ARTICLE 1. The United States receive the united Sac and Fox tribes into their friendship and protection, and the said tribes agree to consider themselves under the protection of the United States, and of no other power whatsoever. ARTICLE 2. The general boundary line between the lands of the United States and of the said Indian tribes shall be as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the Missouri river opposite to the mouth of the Gasconade river; thence in a direct course so as to strike the river Jeffreon at the distance of thirty miles from its mouth, and down the said Jeffreon to the Mississippi, thence up the Mississippi to the mouth of the Ouisconsing river and up the same to a point which shall be thirty-six miles in a direct line from the mouth of the said river, thence by a direct line to the point where the Fox river (a branch of the Illinois) leaves the small lake called Sakaegan, thence down the Fox river to the Illinois river, and down the same

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804

to the Mississippi. And the said tribes, for and in consideration of the friendship and protection of the United States which is now extended to them, of the goods (to the value of two thousand two hundred and thirty-four dollars and fifty cents) which are now delivered, and of the annuity hereinafter stipulated to be paid, do hereby cede and relinquish forever to the United States, all the lands included within the above-described boundary. ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the cession and relinquishment of land made in the preceding article, the United States will deliver to the said tribes at the town of St. Louis or some other convenient place on the Mississippi yearly and every year goods suited to the circumstances of the Indians of the value of one thousand dollars (six hundred of which are intended for the Sacs and four hundred for the Foxes) reckoning that value at the first cost of the goods in the city or place in the United States where they shall be procured. And if the said tribes shall hereafter at an annual delivery of the goods aforesaid, desire that a part of their annuity should be furnished in domestic animals, implements of husbandry and other utensils convenient for them, or in compensation to useful artificers who may reside with or near them, and be employed for their benefit, the same shall at the subsequent annual delivery be furnished accordingly. ARTICLE 4. The United States will never interrupt the said tribes in the possession of the lands which they rightfully claim, but will on the contrary protect them in the quiet enjoyment of the same against their own citizens and against all other white persons who may intrude upon them. And the said tribes do hereby engage that they will never sell their lands or any part thereof to any sovereign power, but the United States, nor to the citizens or subjects of any other sovereign power, nor to the citizens of the United States. ARTICLE 5. Lest the friendship which is now established between the United States and the said Indian tribes should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals, it is hereby agreed that for injuries done by individuals no private revenge or retaliation shall take place, but, instead thereof, complaints shall be made by the party injured to the

www.abc-clio.com

457

other—by the said tribes or either of them to the superintendent of Indian affairs or one of his deputies, and by the superintendent or other person appointed by the President, to the chiefs of the said tribes. And it shall be the duty of the said chiefs upon complaint being made as aforesaid to deliver up the person or persons against whom the complaint is made, to the end that he or they may be punished agreeably to the laws of the state or territory where the offence may have been committed; and in like manner if any robbery, violence or murder shall be committed on any Indian or Indians belonging to the said tribes or either of them, the person or persons so offending shall be tried, and if found guilty, punished in the like manner as if the injury had been done to a white man. And it is further agreed, that the chiefs of the said tribes shall, to the utmost of their power exert themselves to recover horses or other property which may be stolen from any citizen or citizens of the United States by any individual or individuals of their tribes, and the property so recovered shall be forthwith delivered to the superintendent or other person authorized to receive it, that it may be restored to the proper owner; and in cases where the exertions of the chiefs shall be ineffectual in recovering the property stolen as aforesaid, if sufficient proof can be obtained that such property was actually stolen by any Indian or Indians belonging to the said tribes or either of them, the United States may deduct from the annuity of the said tribes a sum equal to the value of the property which has been stolen. And the United States hereby guarantee to any Indian or Indians of the said tribes a full indemnification for any horses or other property which may be stolen from them by any of their citizens; provided that the property so stolen cannot be recovered and that sufficient proof is produced that it was actually stolen by a citizen of the United States. ARTICLE 6. If any citizen of the United States or other white person should form a settlement upon lands which are the property of the Sac and Fox tribes, upon complaint being made thereof to the superintendent or other person having charge of the affairs of the Indians, such intruder shall forthwith be removed. ARTICLE 7. As long as the lands which are now ceded to the United States remain their property, the Indians

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

458

Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804

belonging to the said tribes, shall enjoy the privilege of living and hunting upon them. ARTICLE 8. As the laws of the United States regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, are already extended to the country inhabited by the Saukes and Foxes, and as it is provided by those laws that no person shall reside as a trader in the Indian country without a license under the hand [and] seal of the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other person appointed for the purpose by the President, the said tribes do promise and agree that they will not suffer any trader to reside amongst them without such license; and that they will from time to time give notice to the superintendent or to the agent for their tribes of all the traders that may be in their country. ARTICLE 9. In order to put a stop to the abuses and impositions which are practiced upon the said tribes by the private traders, the United States will at a convenient time establish a trading house or factory where the individuals of the said tribes can be supplied with goods at a more reasonable rate than they have been accustomed to procure them. ARTICLE 10. In order to evince the sincerity of their friendship and affection for the United States and a respectful deference for their advice by an act which will not only be acceptable to them but to the common Father of all the nations of the earth; the said tribes do hereby solemnly promise and agree that they will put an end to the bloody war which has heretofore raged between their tribes and those of the Great and Little Osages. And for the purpose of burying the tomahawk and renewing the friendly intercourse between themselves and the Osages, a meeting of their respective chiefs shall take place, at which under the direction of the above-named commissioner or the agent of Indian affairs residing at St. Louis, an adjustment of all their differences shall be made and peace established upon a firm and lasting basis.

sing or on the right bank of the Mississippi, as the one or the other may be found most convenient; and a tract of land not exceeding two miles square shall be given for that purpose. And the said tribes do further agree, that they will at all times allow to traders and other persons travelling through their country under the authority of the United States a free and safe passage for themselves and their property of every description. And that for such passage they shall at no time and on no account whatever be subject to any toll or exaction. ARTICLE 12. This treaty shall take effect and be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall have been ratified by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof, the said William Henry Harrison, and the chiefs and head men of the said Sac and Fox tribes, have hereunto set their hands and affixed their seals. Done at Saint Louis, in the district of Louisiana, on the third day of November, one thousand eight hundred and four, and of the independence of the United States the twenty-ninth. William Henry Harrison, [L. S.], Layauvois, or Lalyurva, his x mark, [L. S.], Pashepaho, or the giger, his x mark, [L. S.], Quashquame, or jumping fish, his x mark, [L. S.], Outchequaka, or sun fish, his x mark, [L. S.], Hahshequarhiqua, or the bear, his x mark, [L. S.]. In presence of (the words “a branch of the Illinois,” in the third line of the second article, and the word “forever,” in the fifth line of the same article, being first interlined)—

ARTICLE 11. As it is probable that the government of the United States will establish a military post at or near the mouth of the Ouisconsing river; and as the land on the lower side of the river may not be suitable for that purpose, the said tribes hereby agree that a fort may be built either on the upper side of the Ouiscon-

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Wm. Prince, secretary to the commissioner, John Griffin, one of the judges of the Indiana Territory, J. Bruff, major artillery, United States, Amos Stoddard, captain, Corps Artillerists, P. Chouteau, Vigo, S. Warrel, lieutenant, United States Artillery, D. Delamay, Joseph Barron, Hypolite Bolen, his x mark. Sworn interpreters.

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. It is agreed that nothing in this treaty contained, shall affect the claim of any individual or individuals who may have obtained grants of land from the Spanish government, and which are not included within the general boundary line laid down in this treaty, provided that such grant have at any time been made known to the said tribes and recognized by them.

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Aug. 19, 1825. | 7 Stat., 272. | Proclamation. Feb. 6, 1826. Treaty with the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawattomie, Tribes. THE United States of America have seen with much regret, that wars have for many years been carried on between the Sioux and the Chippewas, and more recently between the confederated tribes of Sacs and Foxes, and the Sioux; and also between the Ioways and Sioux; which, if not terminated, may extend to the other tribes, and involve the Indians upon the Missouri, the Mississippi, and the Lakes, in general hostilities. In order, therefore, to promote peace among these tribes, and to establish boundaries among them and the other tribes who live in their vicinity, and thereby to remove all causes of future difficulty, the United States have invited the Chippewa, Sac, and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottowa, Chippewa and Potawatomie Tribes of Indians living upon the Illinois, to assemble together, and in a spirit of mutual conciliation to accomplish these objects; and to aid therein, have appointed William Clark and Lewis Cass, Commissioners on their part, who have met the Chiefs, Warriors, and Representatives of the said tribes, and portion of tribes, at Prairie des Chiens, in the Territory of Michigan, and after full deliberation, the said tribes, and portions of tribes, have agreed with the United States, and with one another, upon the following articles. ARTICLE 1. There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between the Sioux and Chippewas; between the Sioux and the confederated tribes of Sacs and Foxes; and between the Ioways and the Sioux.

www.abc-clio.com

459

ARTICLE 2. It is agreed between the confederated Tribes of the Sacs and Foxes, and the Sioux, that the Line between their respective countries shall be as follows: Commencing at the mouth of the Upper Ioway River, on the west bank of the Mississippi, and ascending the said Ioway river, to its left fork; thence up that fork to its source; thence crossing the fork of Red Cedar River, in a direct line to the second or upper fork of the Desmoines river; and thence in a direct line to the lower fork of the Calumet river; and down that river to its juncture with the Missouri river. But the Yancton band of the Sioux tribe, being principally interested in the establishment of the line from the Forks of the Desmoines to the Missouri, and not being sufficiently represented to render the definitive establishment of that line proper, it is expressly declared that the line from the forks of the Desmoines to the forks of the Calumet river, and down that river to the Missouri, is not to be considered as settled until the assent of the Yancton band shall be given thereto. And if the said band should refuse their assent, the arrangement of that portion of the boundary line shall be void, and the rights of the parties to the country bounded thereby, shall be the same as if no provision had been made for the extension of the line west of the forks of the Desmoines. And the Sacs and Foxes relinquish to the tribes interested therein, all their claim to land on the east side of the Mississippi river. ARTICLE 3. The Ioways accede to the arrangement between the Sacs and Foxes, and the Sioux; but it is agreed between the Ioways and the confederated tribes of the Sacs and Foxes, that the Ioways have a just claim to a portion of the country between the boundary line described in the next preceding article, and the Missouri and Mississippi; and that the said Ioways, and Sacs and Foxes, shall peaceably occupy the same, until some satisfactory arrangement can be made between them for a division of their respective claims to country. ARTICLE 4. The Ottoes not being represented at this Council, and the Commissioners for the United States being anxious that justice should be done to all parties, and having reason to believe that the Ottoes have a just claim to a portion of the country upon the Missouri, east and south of the boundary line dividing the Sacs and Foxes and the Ioways, from the Sioux, it is

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

460

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

agreed between the parties interested therein, and the United States, that the claim of the Ottoes shall not be affected by any thing herein contained; but the same shall remain as valid as if this treaty had not been formed. ARTICLE 5. It is agreed between the Sioux and the Chippewas, that the line dividing their respective countries shall commence at the Chippewa River, half a day’s march below the falls; and from thence it shall run to Red Cedar River, immediately below the falls; from thence to the St. Croix River, which it strikes at a place called the standing cedar, about a day’s paddle in a canoe, above the Lake at the mouth of that river; thence passing between two lakes called by the Chippewas “Green Lakes,” and by the Sioux “the lakes they bury the Eagles in,” and from thence to the standing cedar that “the Sioux Split”; thence to Rum River, crossing it at the mouth of a small creek called Choaking creek, a long day’s march from the Mississippi; thence to a point of woods that projects into the prairie, half a day’s march from the Mississippi; thence in a straight line to the mouth of the first river which enters the Mississippi on its west side above the mouth of Sac river; thence ascending the said river (above the mouth of Sac river) to a small lake at its source; thence in a direct line to a lake at the head of Prairie river, which is supposed to enter the Crow Wing river on its South side; thence to Otter-tail lake Portage; thence to said Ottertail lake, and down through the middle thereof, to its outlet; thence in a direct line, so as to strike Buffalo river, half way from its source to its mouth, and down the said river to Red River; thence descending Red river to the mouth of Outard or Goose creek: The eastern boundary of the Sioux commences opposite the mouth of Ioway river, on the Mississippi, runs back two or three miles to the bluffs, follows the bluffs, crossing Bad axe river, to the mouth of Black river, and from Black river to half a day’s march below the Falls of the Chippewa River. ARTICLE 6. It is agreed between the Chippewas and Winnebagoes, so far as they are mutually interested therein, that the southern boundary line of the Chippewa country shall commence on the Chippewa river aforesaid, half a day’s march below the falls on that river, and run thence to the source of Clear Water river, a branch of the Chippewa; thence south to Black river; thence to a point where the woods pro-

www.abc-clio.com

ject into the meadows, and thence to the Plover Portage of the Ouisconsin. ARTICLE 7. It is agreed between the Winnebagoes and the Sioux, Sacs and Foxes, Chippewas and Ottawas, Chippewas and Potawatomies of the Illinois, that the Winnebago country shall be bounded as follows: south easterly by Rock River, from its source near the Winnebago lake, to the Winnebago village, about forty miles above its mouth; westerly by the east line of the tract, lying upon the Mississippi, herein secured to the Ottawa, Chippewa and Potawatomie Indians, of the Illinois; and also by the high bluff, described in the Sioux boundary, and running north to Black river: from this point the Winnebagoes claim up Black river, to a point due west from the source of the left fork of the Ouisconsin; thence to the source of the said fork, and down the same to the Ouisconsin; thence down the Ouisconsin to the portage, and across the portage to Fox river; thence down Fox river to the Winnebago lake, and to the grand Kan Kanlin, including in their claim the whole of Winnebago lake; but, for the causes stated in the next article, this line from Black river must for the present be left indeterminate. ARTICLE 8. The representatives of the Menominies not being sufficiently acquainted with their proper boundaries, to settle the same definitively, and some uncertainty existing in consequence of the cession made by that tribe upon Fox River and Green Bay, to the New York Indians, it is agreed between the said Menominie tribe, and the Sioux, Chippewas, Winnebagoes, Ottawa, Chippewa and Potawatomie Indians of the Illinois, that the claim of the Menominies to any portion of the land within the boundaries allotted to either of the said tribes, shall not be barred by any stipulation herein; but the same shall remain as valid as if this treaty had not been concluded. It is, however, understood that the general claim of the Menominies is bounded on the north by the Chippewa country, on the east by Green Bay and lake Michigan extending as far south as Millawaukee river, and on the West they claim to Black River. ARTICLE 9. The country secured to the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomie tribes of the Illinois, is bounded as follows: Beginning at the Winnebago village, on Rock river, forty miles from its mouth and running thence

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

down the Rock river to a line which runs from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, and with that line to the Mississippi, opposite to Rock Island; thence up that river to the United States reservation, at the mouth of the Ouisconsin; thence with the south and east lines of the said reservation to the Ouisconsin; thence, southerly, passing the heads of the small streams emptying into the Mississippi, to the Rock river at the Winnebago village. The Illinois Indians have also a just claim to a portion of the country bounded south by the Indian boundary line aforesaid, running from the southern extreme of lake Michigan, east by lake Michigan, north by the Menominie country, and north-west by Rock river. This claim is recognized in the treaty concluded with the said Illinois tribes at St. Louis, August 24, 1816, but as the Millewakee and Manetoowalk bands are not represented at this Council, it cannot be now definitively adjusted. ARTICLE 10. All the tribes aforesaid acknowledge the general controlling power of the United States, and disclaim all dependence upon, and connection with, any other power. And the United States agree to, and recognize, the preceding boundaries, subject to the limitations and restrictions before provided. It being, however, well understood that the reservations at Fever River, at the Ouisconsin, and St. Peters, and the ancient settlements at Prairie des Chiens and Green Bay, and the land property thereto belonging, and the reservations made upon the Mississippi, for the use of the half breeds, in the treaty concluded with the Sacs and Foxes, August 24, 1824, are not claimed by either of the said tribes. ARTICLE 11. The United States agree, whenever the President may think it necessary and proper, to convene such of the tribes, either separately or together, as are interested in the lines left unsettled herein, and to recommend to them an amicable and final adjustment of their respective claims, so that the work, now happily begun, may be consummated. It is agreed, however, that a Council shall be held with the Yancton band of the Sioux, during the year 1826, to explain to them the stipulations of this treaty, and to procure their assent thereto, should they be disposed to give it, and also with the Ottoes, to settle and adjust their title to any of the country claimed by the Sacs, Foxes, and Ioways.

www.abc-clio.com

461

ARTICLE 12. The Chippewa tribe being dispersed over a great extent of country, and the Chiefs of that tribe having requested, that such portion of them as may be thought proper, by the Government of the United States, may be assembled in 1826, upon some part of Lake Superior, that the objects and advantages of this treaty may be fully explained to them, so that the stipulations thereof may be observed by the warriors. The Commissioners of the United States assent thereto, and it is therefore agreed that a council shall accordingly be held for these purposes. ARTICLE 13. It is understood by all the tribes, parties hereto, that no tribe shall hunt within the acknowledged limits of any other without their assent, but it being the sole object of this arrangement to perpetuate a peace among them, and amicable relations being now restored, the Chiefs of all the tribes have expressed a determination, cheerfully to allow a reciprocal right of hunting on the lands of one another, permission being first asked and obtained, as before provided for. ARTICLE 14. Should any causes of difficulty hereafter unhappily arise between any of the tribes, parties hereunto, it is agreed that the other tribes shall interpose their good offices to remove such difficulties; and also that the government of the United States may take such measures as they may deem proper, to effect the same object. ARTICLE 15. This treaty shall be obligatory on the tribes, parties hereto, from and after the date hereof, and on the United States, from and after its ratification by the government thereof. Done, and signed, and sealed, at Prairie des Chiens, in the territory of Michigan, this nineteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and twentyfive, and of the independence of the United States the fiftieth. William Clark, [L. S.], Lewis Cass, [L. S.]. Sioux: Wa-ba-sha, x or the leaf, [L. S.], Pe-tet-te x Corbeau, little crow, [L. S.],

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

462

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

The Little x of the Wappitong tribe, [L. S.], Tartunka-nasiah x Sussitong, [L. S.], Sleepy Eyes, x Sossitong, [L. S.], Two faces x do [L. S.], French Crow x Wappacoota, [L. S.], Kee-jee x do [L. S.], Tar-se-ga x do [L. S.], Wa-ma-de-tun-ka x black dog, [L. S.], Wan-na-ta x Yancton, or he that charges on his enemies, [L. S.], Red Wing x [L. S.], Ko-ko-ma-ko x [L. S.], Sha-co-pe x the Sixth, [L. S.], Pe-ni-si-on x [L. S.], Eta-see-pa x Wabasha’s band, [L. S.], Wa-ka-u-hee, x Sioux band, rising thunder, [L. S.], The Little Crow, x Sussetong, [L. S.], Po-e-ha-pa x Me-da-we-con-tong, or eagle head, [L. S.], Ta-ke-wa-pa x Wappitong, or medicine blanket, [L. S.], Tench-ze-part, x his bow, [L. S.], Masc-pu-lo-chas-tosh, x the white man, [L. S.], Te-te-kar-munch, x the buffaloman, [L. S.], Wa-sa-o-ta x Sussetong, or a great of hail, [L. S.], Oeyah-ko-ca, x the crackling tract, [L. S.], Mak-to-wah-ke-ark, x the bear, [L. S.]. Winnebagoes: Les quatres jambes, x [L. S.], Carimine, x the turtle that walks, [L. S.], De-ca-ri, x [L. S.], Wan-ca-ha-ga, x or snake’s skin, [L. S.], Sa-sa-ma-ni, x [L. S.], Wa-non-che-qua, x the merchant, [L. S.], Chon-que-pa, x or dog’s head, [L. S.], Cha-rat-chon, x the smoker, [L. S.], Ca-ri-ca-si-ca, x he that kills the crow, [L. S.], Watch-kat-o-que, x the grand canoe, [L. S.], Ho-wa-mick-a, x the little elk, [L. S.]. Menominees: Ma-can-me-ta, x medicine bear, [L. S.], Chau-wee-nou-mi-tai, x medicine south wind, [L. S.], Char-o-nee, x [L. S.], Ma-wesh-a, x the little wolf, [L. S.], A-ya-pas-mis-ai, x the thunder that turns, [L. S.], Cha-ne-pau, x the riband, [L. S.], La-me-quon, x the spoon, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

En-im-e-tas, x the barking wolf, [L. S.], Pape-at, x the one just arrived, [L. S.], O-que-men-ce, x the little chief, [L. S.]. Chippewas: Shinguaba x W’Ossin, 1st chief of the Chippewa nation, Saulte St. Marie, [L. S.], Gitspee x Jiauba, 2d chief, [L. S.], Gitspee x Waskee, or le boeuf of la pointe lake Superior, [L. S.], Nain-a-boozhu, x of la pointe lake Superior, [L. S.], Monga, x Zid or loon’s foot of Fond du Lac, [L. S.], Weescoup, x or sucre of Fond du Lac, [L. S.], Mush-Koas, x or the elk of Fond du Lac, [L. S.], Nau-bun x Aqeezhik, of Fond du Lac, [L. S.], Kau-ta-waubeta, x or broken tooth of Sandy lake, [L. S.], Pugisaingegen, x or broken arm of Sandy lake, [L. S.], Kwee-weezaishish, x or gross guelle of Sandy lake, [L. S.], Ba-ba-see-kundade, x or curling hair of Sandy lake, [L. S.], Paashineep, x or man shooting at the mark of Sandy lake, [L. S.], Pu-ga-a-gik, x the little beef, Leech lake, [L. S.], Pee-see-ker, x or buffalo, St. Croix band, [L. S.], Nau-din, x or the wind, St. Croix band, [L. S.], Nau-quan-a-bee, x of Mille lac, [L. S.], Tu-kau-bis-hoo, x or crouching lynx of Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.], The Red Devil, x of Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.], The Track, x of Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.], Ne-bo-na-bee, x the mermaid Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.], Pi-a-gick, x the single man St. Croix, [L. S.], Pu-in-a-ne-gi, x, or the hole in the day, Sandy lake, [L. S.], Moose-o-mon-e, x plenty of elk, St. Croix band, [L. S.], Nees-o-pe-na, x or two birds of Upper Red Cedar lake, [L. S.], Shaata, x the pelican of Leech lake, [L. S.], Che-on-o-quet, x the great cloud of Leech lake, [L. S.], I-au-ben-see, x the little buck of Red lake, [L. S.], Kia-wa-tas, x the tarrier of Leech lake, [L. S.], Mau-ge-ga-bo, x the leader of Leech lake, [L. S.],

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

Nan-go-tuck, x the flame of Leech lake, [L. S.], Nee-si-day-sish, x the sky of Red lake, [L. S.], Pee-chan-a-nim, x striped feather of Sandy lake, [L. S.], White Devil, x of Leech lake, [L. S.], Ka-ha-ka, x the sparrow, Lac, Courte Oreille, [L. S.] I-au-be-ence, x little buck, of Rice lake, Ca-bama-bee, x the assembly of St. Croix, [L. S.], Nau-gau-nosh, x the forward man lake Flambeau, [L. S.], Caw-win-dow, x he that gathers berries of Sandy Lake, [L. S.], On-que-ess, the mink, lake Superior, [L. S.], Ke-we-ta-ke-pe, x all round the sky, [L. S.], The-sees, x [L. S.]. Ottawas: Chaboner, x or Chambly, [L. S.], Shaw-fau-wick, x the mink, [L. S.]. Potawatomies: Ignace, x [L. S.], Ke-o-kuk, x [L. S.], Che-chan-quose, x the little crane, [L. S.], Taw-wa-na-nee, x the trader, [L. S.]. Sacs: Na-o-tuk, x the stabbing chief, [L. S.], Pish-ken-au-nee, x all fish, [L. S.], Po-ko-nau-qua, x or broken arm, [L. S.], Wau-kau-che, x eagle nose, [L. S.], Quash-kaume, x jumping fish, [L. S.], Ochaach, x the fisher, [L. S.], Ke-o-kuck, x the watchful fox, [L. S.], Skin-gwin-ee-see, the x ratler, [L. S.], Was-ar-wis-ke-no, x the yellow bird, [L. S.], Pau-ko-tuk, x the open sky, [L. S.], Au-kaak-wan-e-suk, x he that vaults on the earth, [L. S.], Mu-ku-taak-wan-wet, x [L. S.], Mis-ke-bee, x the standing hair, [L. S.]. Foxes: Wan-ba-law, x the playing fox, [L. S.], Ti-a-mah, x the bear that makes the rocks shake, [L. S.], Pee-ar-maski, x the jumping sturgeon, [L. S.], Shagwa-na-tekwishu, x the thunder that is heard all over the world, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

463

Mis-o-win, x moose deer horn, [L. S.], No-ko-wot, x the down of the fur, [L. S.], Nau-sa-wa-quot, x the bear that sleeps on the forks, [L. S.], Shin-quin-is, x the ratler, [L. S.], O-lo-pee-aau, x or Mache-paho-ta, the bear, [L. S.], Keesis, x the sun, [L. S.], No-wank, x he that gives too little, [L. S.], Kan-ka-mote, x [L. S.], Neek-waa, x [L. S.], Ka-tuck-e-kan-ka, x the fox with a spotted breast, [L. S.], Mock-to-back-sa-gum, x black tobacco, [L. S.], Wes-kesa, x the bear family, [L. S.]. Ioways: Ma-hos-ka, x the white cloud, [L. S.], Pumpkin, x [L. S.], Wa-ca-nee, x the painted medicine, [L. S.], Tar-no-mun, x a great many deer, [L. S.], Wa-hoo-ga, x the owl, [L. S.], Ta-ca-mo-nee, x the lightning, [L. S.], Wa-push-a, x the man killer, [L. S.], To-nup-he-non-e, x the flea, [L. S.], Mon-da-tonga, x [L. S.], Cho-wa-row-a, x [L. S.]. Witnesses: Thomas Biddle, secretary, R. A. McCabe, Captain Fifth Infantry, R. A. Forsyth, N. Boilvin, United States Indian agent, C. C. Trowbridge, sub Indian agent, Henry R. Schoolcraft, United States Indian agent, B. F. Harney, Surgeon U. S. Army, W. B. Alexander, sub Indian agent, Thomas Forsyth, agent Indian affairs, Marvien Blondau, David Bailey, James M’Ilvaine, lieutenant U. S. Army, Law. Taliaferro, Indian agent for Upper Mississippi, John Holiday, William Dickson, S. Campbell, United States interpreter, J. A. Lewis, William Holiday, Dunable Denejlevy, Bela Chapman.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

464

Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830

Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 Aug. 31, 1830. | Unratified. | Indian Office, box 1, Treaties, 1802–1853. | See note, ante, p. 360. Articles of a treaty, entered into at Franklin, Tennessee, this 31st day of August, 1830, by John H. Eaton, Secretary of War, and General John Coffee, commissioners appointed by the President, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and head men of the Chickasaw Nation of Indians, duly authorized, by the whole nation, to conclude a treaty. ARTICLE 1. The Chickasaw Nation hereby cede to the United States all the lands owned and possessed by them, on the East side of the Mississippi River, where they at present reside, and which lie north of the following boundary, viz: beginning at the mouth of the Oacktibbyhaw (or Tibbee) creek; thence, up the same, to a point, being a marked tree, on the old Natchez road, about one mile Southwardly from Wall’s old place; thence, with the Choctaw boundary, and along it, Westwardly, through the Tunicha old fields, to a point on the Mississippi river, about twenty-eight miles, by water, below where the St. Francis river enters said stream, on the West side. All the lands North, and North-East of said boundary, to latitude thirty-five North the South boundary of the State of Tennessee, being owned by the Chickasaws, are hereby ceded to the United States. ARTICLE 2. In consideration of said cession, the United States agree to furnish to the Chickasaw Nation of Indians, a country, West of the territory of Arkansaw, to lie South of latitude thirty-six degrees and a half, and of equal extent with the one ceded; and in all respects as to timber, water and soil, it shall be suited to the wants and condition of said Chickasaw people. It is agreed further, that the United States will send one or more commissioners to examine and select a country of the description stated, who shall be accompanied by an interpreter and not more than twelve persons of the Chickasaws, to be chosen by the nation, to examine said country; and who, for their expenses and services, shall be allowed two dollars a day each, while so engaged. If, after proper examination, a country suitable to their wants and condition can not be found; then, it is stipulated and agreed, that this treaty, and all its provisions, shall be consid-

www.abc-clio.com

ered null and void. But, if a country shall be found and approved, the President of the United States shall cause a grant in fee simple to be made out, to be signed by him as other grants are usually signed, conveying the country to the Chickasaw people, and to their children, so long as they shall continue to exist as a nation, and shall reside upon the same. ARTICLE 3. The Chickasaws being a weak tribe, it is stipulated that the United States will, at all times, extend to them their protection and care against enemies of every description, but it is, at the same time, agreed, that they shall act peaceably, and never make war, nor resort to arms, except with the consent and approval of the President, unless in cases where they may be invaded by some hostile power or tribe. ARTICLE 4. As further consideration, the United States agree, that each warrior and widow having a family, and each white man, having an Indian family, shall be entitled to a half section of land, and if they have no family, to half that quantity. The delegation present, having full knowledge of the population of their country, stipulate, that the first class of cases (those with families), shall not exceed five hundred, and that the other class shall not exceed one hundred persons. The reservations secured under this article, shall be granted in fee simple, to those who choose to remain, and become subject to the laws of the whites; and who, having recorded such intention with the agent, before the time of the first removal, shall continue to reside upon, and cultivate the same, for five years; at the expiration of which time, a grant shall be issued. But should they prefer to remove, and actually remove, then the United States, in lieu of such reservations will pay for the same, at the rate of one dollar and a half per acre; the same to be paid in ten equal, annual installments, to commence after the period of the ratification of this treaty, if, at that time, they shall have removed. ARTICLE 5. It is agreed, that the United States, as further consideration, will pay to said Nation of Indians, fifteen thousand dollars annually, for twenty years; the first payment to be made after their removal shall take place, and they be settled at their new homes, West of the Mississippi.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830

ARTICLE 6. Whereas Levi Colbert, George Clobber, Tessemingo, William McGilvery and Saml. Seeley Senr, have been long known, as faithful and steady friends of the United States, and regardless of the interest of their own people; to afford them an earnest of our good feeling, now that they are about to seek a new home; the commissioners, of their own accord, and without any thing of solicitation or request, on the part of said persons, have proposed, and do agree, that they have reservations of four sections each, to include their present improvements, as nearly as may be; or, if they have improvements at any other place than one, then, equally to divide said reservations, so that two sections may be laid off at one place of improvement, and two at another; or, the whole at one place, as the party entitled may choose. They shall be entitled to the same in fee simple, to be resided upon; or, if they prefer it, they may, with the consent of the President, sell and convey the same, in fee. And it is further agreed, that upon the same terms and conditions, a reservation of two sections, to be surveyed together, and to include the improvements of the party entitled, shall and the same is hereby declared to be, secured to Capt. James Brown, James Colbert, John McLish & Isaac Alberson. ARTICLE 7. The delegation having selected the following persons, as worthy their regard and confidence, to wit;— Ish to yo to pe, To pul ka, Ish te ke yo ka tubbe, Ish te ke cha, E le paum be, Pis te la tubbe, Ish tim mo lat ka, Pis ta tubbe, Im mo hoal te tubbe, Ba ka tubbe, Ish to ye tubbe, Ah to ko wa, Pak la na ya ubbe. In hie yo che tubbe, Thomas Seally, Tum ma sheck ah, Im mo la subbe, Am le mi ya tubbe; Benjamin Love and Malcomb McGee;—it is consented that each of said persons shall be entitled to a reservation of one section of land to be located in a body, to include their present improvement, and upon which, intending to become resident citizens of the country, they may continue, and at the end of five years, shall receive a grant for the same; or, should they prefer to remove, they shall be entitled, in lieu thereof, to receive from the United States, one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for the same, to be paid in two equal, annual installments, to commence after the ratification of this treaty, and after the nation shall have removed. ARTICLE 8. No person receiving a special reservation, shall be entitled to claim any further reservation,

www.abc-clio.com

465

under the provisions of the fourth article of this treaty. ARTICLE 9. At the request of the delegation, it is agreed that Levi Colbert shall have an additional section of land, to that granted him in the 6th article, to be located where he may prefer, and subject to the conditions contained in said sixth article. ARTICLE 10. All the reservations made by this treaty, shall be in sections, half sections, or quarter sections, agreeably to the legal surveys made, and shall include the present houses and improvements of the reserves, as nearly as may be. ARTICLE 11. It is agreed that the Chickasaw people, in removing to their new homes, shall go there at the expense of the United States; and that when they shall have arrived at their new homes, the United States will furnish to each one, for the space of one year, meat and corn rations, for himself and his family; that thereby, time may be afforded to clear the ground, and prepare a crop. And the better to effect this object, it is agreed that one-half the nation shall remove in the fall of 1831, and the other half the following fall. The supplies to be furnished by the United States, are to be delivered at one or two places in the nation, which shall be as convenient to the body of the people as may be practicable; having regard to the position or places, where the supplies may be had or deposited, with the greatest convenience, and least expense to the United States. ARTICLE 12. The United States, at the time of the removal of each portion of the nation, at the valuation of some respectable person, to be appointed by the President, agree to purchase all the stock they may desire to part with, (except horses), and to pay them therefor, at their new homes, as early as practicable after the ratification of this treaty. Also, to receive their agricultural and farming utensils, and to furnish them, at the West, with axes, hoes and ploughs, suited to their wants respectively. Also, to furnish each family with a spinning wheel and cards, and a loom to every six families. ARTICLE 13. A council house, and two houses of public worship, which may be used for the purposes of schools,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

466

Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830

shall be built by the United States; and the sum of four thousand dollars shall be appropriated for that purpose. Also, one blacksmith, and no more, shall be employed at the expense of the government, for twenty years, for the use of the Indians; and a millwright for five years, to aid them in erecting their saw and grist-mills.

It is agreed, that the President of the United States will use his good offices, and kind mediation, and make a request of the governor and legislature of the State of Mississippi, not to extend their laws over the Chickasaws; or to suspend their operation, until they shall have time to remove, as limited in this treaty.

ARTICLE 14. The sum of two thousand dollars a year, shall be paid for ten years, for the purpose of employing suitable teachers of the Christian religion, and superintending common schools in the nation. And it is further consented, that twenty Chickasaw boys of promise, from time to time, for the period of twenty years, shall be selected from the nation by the chiefs, to be educated within the States at the expense of the United States, under the direction of the Secretary of War.

In witness of all and every thing herein determined, between the United States, and the delegation representing the whole Chickasaw nation, the parties heave hereunto set their hands and seals, at Franklin, Tennessee, within the United States, this thirty-first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and thirty. Jn H Eaton, Secr. of War. Jno. Coffee. Levi Colbert, his x mark. George Colbert, his x mark. James Colbert, his x mark. Wm. McGilvery, his x mark. James Brown, his x mark. Isaac Alberson, his x mark. To pul ka, his x mark. Ish te ke yo ka tubbe, his x mark. Ish te ke cha, his x mark. Im me houl te tubbe, his x mark. In ha yo chet tubbe, his x mark. Ish te ya tubbe, his x mark. Ah to ko wa, his x mark. Ook la na ya ubbe, his x mark. Im mo la subbe, his x mark. Hush ta ta be, his x mark. In no wa ke che, his x mark. Oh he cubbe, his x mark. Kin hi che, his x mark. J. W. Lish.

ARTICLE 15. A desire having been expressed by Levi Colbert, that two of his younger sons, Abijah Jackson Colbert, and Andrew Morgan Colbert, aged seven and five years, might be educated under the direction and care of the President of the United States;—and George Colbert having also expressed—a wish that his grandson, Andrew J. Frazier, aged about twelve years, might have a similar attention: It is consented, that at a proper age, as far as they may be found to have capacity, they shall receive a liberal education, at the expense of the United States, under the direction and control of the President. ARTICLE 16. The United States shall have authority, after the ratification of this treaty by the Senate, to survey and prepare the country for sale; but no sale shall take place before the fall of 1832, or until they shall remove. And that every clause and article herein contained may be strictfully fulfilled;—it is stipulated and agreed, that the lands herein ceded shall be, and the same are hereby pledged, for the payment of the several sums which are secured and directed to be paid, under the several provisions of this treaty. ARTICLE 17. The United States, and the Chickasaw nation of Indians herein stipulate, that perpetual peace, and unaltered and lasting friendship, shall be maintained between them.

www.abc-clio.com

Signed in presence of us, Preston Hay, Secretary. Benj. Reynolds, U. S. agent. Benjamin Love, interpreter. R. M. Gavock. R. P. Currin. Lemuel Smith. Leml. Donelson. Jos. H. Fry. James H. Wilson. J. R. Davis. Articles, supplementary to a treaty this day entered into, between John H. Eaton and John Coffee, on the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830

part of the United States, and the Chiefs of the Chickasaw nation. ARTICLE 1. It is agreed that the United States will furnish the Chickasaw nation, to be distributed by the agent, under the direction of the chiefs, at or before the time of their removal West of the Mississippi river, three hundred rifles, with moulds and wipers; also, three hundred pounds of good powder, and twelve hundred pounds of lead. They will also furnish as aforesaid, three hundred copper or brass kettles, and six hundred blankets. Likewise three thousand weight of leaf tobacco. ARTICLE 2. Colbert’s Island, in the Tennessee river, just below the mouth of Caney Creek, supposed to contain five hundred acres, has always been in the use and occupancy of George Colbert, and has been admitted by the nation, to be his individual property. It is agreed now, that he shall be recognized, as having a title to the same, and that he shall receive from the United States, in consideration of it, one thousand dollars, to be paid in one year after the Chickasaws shall remove to their new homes. ARTICLE 3. James Colbert has represented, that he has a claim of thirteen hundred dollars, of money due from a citizen of the United States, —that he has become insolvent, and is unable to pay it. It is further represented, that by the rule of the Chickasaw people, where an Indian cannot pay a debt due to a white man, the nation assumes it. Also, Levi Colbert shews, that some time since, he purchased of a white citizen, a horse which was stolen, and proven and taken out of his possession, as stolen property, for which he has not, and cannot, obtain remuneration. Being now about to leave their ancient homes, for a new one, too distant to attend to their business here;—it is agreed that a section of land may be located and reserved, to be bound by sectional lines; which land, with the consent of the President, they may sell. ARTICLE 4. The Chickasaw delegation request, that a reservation of land may be made in favor of their excellent agent, Col. Benjamin Reynolds, who, since he has been among them, has acted uprightly and faithfully, and of their sub-agent, Major John L. Allen, who also, has been of much service:—The commissioners

www.abc-clio.com

467

accordingly consent thereto; and it is stipulated that Col. Reynolds shall have a reservation of five quarter sections of land, to be bounded by sectional lines, or quarter sectional lines, and to lie together, in a body; and in further consideration, it is stipulated, with the consent of said Reynolds, that his pension of two hundred and forty dollars a year, granted to him by the United States, shall thereafter cease and determine. The application in favor of the sub-agent, Maj. Allen, is also recognized, and a reservation of a quarter section is admitted to his wife, to whom and for whose benefit a grant shall issue. But said reservations shall not be located, so as to interfere with other claims to reservations, secured under this treaty, nor shall this treaty be affected if this article is not ratified. ARTICLE 5. The 4th article of the treaty of 19th October 1818, which reserves a salt lick, and authorizes Levi Colbert and James Brown to lease the same for a reasonable quantity of salt, is hereby changed;—And with the consent of the commissioners present, the following agreement, made by Robert P. Currin, for himself and William B. Lewis, is entered as part of this treaty, to wit; Whereas a lease of land, of four miles square, was secured under the fourth article of a treaty, concluded on the 19th day of October 1818, between the United States and the Chickasaw nation of Indians; and Levi Colbert and James Brown, under the same treaty, were appointed agents and trustees by the Chickasaw nation to make said lease. And whereas William B. Lewis, a citizen of the United States afterwards procured from said trustees, Colbert and Brown, a lease for the same, on condition of his paying annually, a certain amount of salt to said nation, provided he should succeed in finding salt water. And whereas the said William B. Lewis and Robert P. Currin, who subsequently became interested with him, have, as is shown, expended about the sum of three thousand dollars, in endeavoring to find salt water, but without success. And the Indians, who are about to leave their ancient country, being desirous to have this land and lease placed in such a condition, as that some benefit may result to their nation, They do hereby agree with said Robert P. Currin, a citizen of the United States, for himself, and as the agent and attorney in fact of the said William B. Lewis (John H. Eaton and John Coffee, the United States commissioners, to treat with said

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

468

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

Chickasaw nation being present and assenting thereto); that the lease heretofore made, be so changed, that the rent therein agreed to be paid is entirely released and discharged, from the date of said lease, together with all claim arising on account of the same. And it is now agreed, that said lease shall remain, as heretofore made, with this alteration: that two thousand dollars shall be paid to said Colbert and Brown, trustees as aforesaid, for the Chickasaw nation: to wit: five hundred dollars now in hand; five hundred dollars on the first day of October one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one; and one thousand dollars on the first day of October one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two. And it is further agreed, in consideration of said alteration of said original contract and lease, herein made and agreed upon; and the said Robert P. Currin, for himself and the said William B. Lewis, for each and for both, he having full authority to act in the premises, will annually pay to said trustees, four bushels of salt, or the value thereof, as they and the nation may agree to and direct. In testimony whereof, and in the presence of the commissioners, appointed to treat with the Chickasaw nation of people, on the part of the United States, the parties respectively have hereto set their hands and affixed their seals, this first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and thirty. Jn. H. Eaton, Secty. of War. Jno. Coffee. Levi Colbert, his x mark. George Colbert, his x mark. James Colbert, his x mark. Wm. McGilvery, his x mark. Isaac Alberson, his x mark. James Bown, his x mark. To pul ka, his x mark. Ish te ki yo ka tubbe, his x mark. Ish te he cha, his x mark. Im me houl te tubbe, his x mark. In hei yo chit tubbe, his x mark. Ish te ya tubbe, his x mark. Ah to ko wa, his x mark. Ook la na ya ubbe, his x mark. Im mo la tubbe, his x mark. Hush ta ta be, his x mark. In no wa ke che, his x mark. On he cubbe, his x mark.

www.abc-clio.com

Kin hu che, his x mark. J. W. Lish. Signed in presence of us, Preston Hay, secretary. Benj. Reynolds, U. S. agent. Benjamin Love, as interpreter. R. M. Gavock. Leml. Donelson. Leml. Smith. R. P. Currin. Jos. H. Fry. James H. Wilson. J. R. Davis.

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 Sept. 27, 1830. | 7 Stat., 333. | Proclamation, Feb. 24, 1831. A treaty of perpetual, friendship, cession and limits, entered into by John H. Eaton and John Coffee, for and in behalf of the Government of the United States, and the Mingoes, Chiefs, Captains and Warriors of the Choctaw Nation, begun and held at Dancing Rabbit Creek, on the fifteenth of September, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty. WHEREAS the General Assembly of the State of Mississippi has extended the laws of said State to persons and property within the chartered limits of the same, and the President of the United States has said that he cannot protect the Choctaw people from the operation of these laws; Now therefore that the Choctaw may live under their own laws in peace with the United States and the State of Mississippi they have determined to sell their lands east of the Mississippi and have accordingly agreed to the following articles of treaty: a Perpetual peace and friendship is pledged and agreed upon by and between the United States and the Mingoes, Chiefs, and Warriors of the Choctaw Nation of Red People; and that this may be considered the Treaty existing between the parties all other Treaties heretofore existing and inconsistent with the provisions of this are hereby declared null and void. ARTICLE 2. The United States under a grant specially to be made by the President of the U.S. shall cause to be con-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

veyed to the Choctaw Nation a tract of country west of the Mississippi River, in fee simple to them and their descendants, to inure to them while they shall exist as a nation and live on it, beginning near Fort Smith where the Arkansas boundary crosses the Arkansas River, running thence to the source of the Canadian fork; if in the limits of the United States, or to those limits; thence due south to Red River, and down Red River to the west boundary of the Territory of Arkansas; thence north along that line to the beginning. The boundary of the same to be agreeably to the Treaty made and concluded at Washington City in the year 1825. The grant to be executed so soon as the present Treaty shall be ratified. ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the provisions contained in the several articles of this Treaty, the Choctaw nation of Indians consent and hereby cede to the United States, the entire country they own and possess, east of the Mississippi River; and they agree to move beyond the Mississippi River, early as practicable, and will so arrange their removal, that as many as possible of their people not exceeding one half of the whole number, shall depart during the falls of 1831 and 1832; the residue to follow during the succeeding fall of 1833, a better opportunity in this manner will be afforded the Government, to extend to them the facilities and comforts which it is desirable should be extended in conveying them to their new homes. ARTICLE 4. The Government and people of the United States are hereby obliged to secure to the said Choctaw Nation of Red People the jurisdiction and government of all the persons and property that may be within their limits west, so that no Territory or state shall ever have a right to pass laws for the government of the Choctaw Nation of Red People and their descendants; and that no part of the land granted them shall ever be embraced in any Territory or State; but the F. S. shall forever secure said Choctaw Nation from, and against, all laws except such as from time to time may be enacted in their own National Councils, not inconsistent with the Constitution, Treaties, and Laws of the United States; and except such as may, and which have been enacted by Congress, to the extent that Congress under the Constitution are required to exercise a legislation over Indian affairs. But the Choctaws, should this treaty be ratified, express a

www.abc-clio.com

469

wish that Congress may grant to the Choctaws the right of punishing by their own laws any white man who shall come into their nation and infringe any of their national regulations. ARTICLE 5. The United States are obliged to protect the Choctaws from domestic strife and from foreign enemies on the same principles that the citizens of the United States are protected, so that whatever would be a legal demand upon the U.S. for defense or for wrongs committed by an enemy, on a citizen of the U.S. shall be equally binding in favor of the Choctaws, and in all cases where the Choctaws shall be called upon by a legally authorized officer of the U.S. to fight an enemy, such Choctaw shall receive the pay and other emoluments, [this paragraph was not ratified] which citizens of the U.S. receive in such cases, provided, no war shall be undertaken or prosecuted by said Choctaw Nation but by declaration made in full Council, and to be approved by the U.S. unless it be in self defense against an open rebellion or against an enemy marching into their country, in which cases they shall defend, until the U.S. are advised thereof. ARTICLE 6. Should a Choctaw or any party of Choctaws commit acts of violence upon the person or property of a citizen of the U.S. or join any war party against any neighbouring tribe of Indians, without the authority in the preceding article; and except to oppose an actual or threatened invasion or rebellion, such person so offending shall be delivered up to an officer of the U.S. if in the power of the Choctaw Nation, that such offender may be punished as may be provided in such cases, by the laws of the U.S.; but if such offender is not within the control of the Choctaw Nation, then said Choctaw Nation shall not be held responsible for the injury done by said offender. ARTICLE 7. All acts of violence committed upon persons and property of the people of the Choctaw Nation either by citizens of the U.S. or neighbouring Tribes of Red People, shall be referred to some authorized Agent by him to be referred to the President of the U.S. who shall examine into such cases and see that every possible degree of justice is done to said Indian party of the Choctaw Nation.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

470

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

ARTICLE 8. Offenders against the laws of the U.S. or any individual State shall be apprehended and delivered to any duly authorized person where such offender may be found in the Choctaw country, having fled from any part of U.S. but in all such cases application must be made to the Agent or Chiefs and the expense of his apprehension and delivery provided for and paid by the U. States. ARTICLE 9. Any citizen of the U.S. who may be ordered from the Nation by the Agent and constituted authorities of the Nation and refusing to obey or return into the Nation without the consent of the aforesaid persons, shall be subject to such pains and penalties as may be provided by the laws of the U.S. in such cases. Citizens of the U.S. traveling peaceably under the authority of the laws of the U.S. shall be under the care and protection of the nation. ARTICLE 10. No person shall expose goods or other article for sale as a trader, without a written permit from the constituted authorities of the Nation, or authority of the laws of the Congress of the U.S. under penalty of forfeiting the Articles, and the constituted authorities of the Nation shall grant no license except to such persons as reside in the Nation and are answerable to the laws of the Nation. The U.S. shall be particularly obliged to assist to prevent ardent spirits from being introduced into the Nation. ARTICLE 11. Navigable streams shall be free to the Choctaws who shall pay no higher toll or duty than citizens of the U.S. It is agreed further that the U.S. shall establish one or more Post Offices in said Nation, and may establish such military post roads, and posts, as they may consider necessary. ARTICLE 12. All intruders shall be removed from the Choctaw Nation and kept without it. Private property to be always respected and on no occasion taken for public purposes without just compensation being made therefor to the rightful owner. If an Indian unlawfully take or steal any property from a white man a citizen of the U.S. the offender shall be punished. And if a white man unlawfully take or steal any thing from an Indian, the property shall be restored and the offender punished. It is further agreed that

www.abc-clio.com

when a Choctaw shall be given up to be tried for any offense against the laws of the U.S. if unable to employ counsel to defend him, the U.S. will do it, that his trial may be fair and impartial. ARTICLE 13. It is consented that a qualified Agent shall be appointed for the Choctaws every four years, unless sooner removed by the President; and he shall be removed on petition of the constituted authorities of the Nation, the President being satisfied there is sufficient cause shown. The Agent shall fix his residence convenient to the great body of the people; and in the selection of an Agent immediately after the ratification of this Treaty, the wishes of the Choctaw Nation on the subject shall be entitled to great respect. ARTICLE 14. Each Choctaw head of a family being desirous to remain and become a citizen of the States, shall be permitted to do so, by signifying his intention to the Agent within six months from the ratification of this Treaty, and he or she shall thereupon be entitled to a reservation of one section of six hundred and forty acres of land, to be bounded by sectional lines of survey; in like manner shall be entitled to one half that quantity for each unmarried child which is living with him over ten years of age; and a quarter section to such child as may be under 10 years of age, to adjoin the location of the parent. If they reside upon said lands intending to become citizens of the States for five years after the ratification of this Treaty, in that case a grant in fee simple shall issue; said reservation shall include the present improvement of the head of the family, or a portion of it. Persons who claim under this article shall not lose the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove are not to be entitled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity. ARTICLE 15. To each of the Chiefs in the Choctaw Nation (to wit) Greenwood Laflore, Nutackachie, and Mushulatubbe there is granted a reservation of four sections of land, two of which shall include and adjoin their present improvement, and the other two located where they please but on unoccupied unimproved lands, such sections shall be bounded by sectional lines, and with the consent of the President they may sell the same. Also to the three principal Chiefs and to their successors in office there shall be paid two hundred and fifty dollars annually while they shall continue in their respective offices, except

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

to Mushulatubbe, who as he has an annuity of one hundred and fifty dollars for life under a former treaty, shall receive only the additional sum of one hundred dollars, while he shall continue in office as Chief; and if in addition to this the Nation shall think proper to elect an additional principal Chief of the whole to superintend and govern upon republican principles he shall receive annually for his services five hundred dollars, which allowance to the Chiefs and their successors in office, shall continue for twenty years. At any time when in military service, and while in service by authority of the U.S. the district Chiefs under and by selection of the President shall be entitled to the pay of Majors; the other Chief under the same circumstances shall have the pay of a Lieutenant Colonel. The Speakers of the three districts, shall receive twenty-five dollars a year for four years each; and the three secretaries one to each of the Chiefs, fifty dollars each for four years. Each Captain of the Nation, the number not to exceed ninety-nine, thirty-three from each district, shall be furnished upon removing to the West, with each a good suit of clothes and a broad sword as an outfit, and for four years commencing with the first of their removal shall each receive fifty dollars a year, for the trouble of keeping their people at order in settling; and whenever they shall be in military service by authority of the U.S. shall receive the pay of a captain. ARTICLE 16. In wagons; and with steam boats as may be found necessary—the U.S. agree to remove the Indians to their new homes at their expense and under the care of discreet and careful persons, who will be kind and brotherly to them. They agree to furnish them with ample corn and beef, or pork for themselves and families for twelve months after reaching their new homes. It is agreed further that the U.S. will take all their cattle, at the valuation of some discreet person to be appointed by the President, and the same shall be paid for in money after their arrival at their new homes; or other cattle such as may be desired shall be furnished them, notice being given through their Agent of their wishes upon this subject before their removal that time to supply the demand may be afforded. ARTICLE 17. The several annuities and sums secured under former Treaties to the Choctaw nation and people shall continue as though this Treaty had never been made.

www.abc-clio.com

471

And it is further agreed that the U.S. in addition will pay the sum of twenty thousand dollars for twenty years, commencing after their removal to the west, of which, in the first year after their removal, ten thousand dollars shall be divided and arranged to such as may not receive reservations under this Treaty. ARTICLE 18. The U.S. shall cause the lands hereby ceded to be surveyed; and surveyors may enter the Choctaw Country for that purpose, conducting themselves properly and disturbing or interrupting none of the Choctaw people. But no person is to be permitted to settle within the nation, or the lands to be sold before the Choctaws shall remove. And for the payment of the several amounts secured in this Treaty, the lands hereby ceded are to remain a fund pledged to that purpose, until the debt shall be provided for and arranged. And further it is agreed, that in the construction of this Treaty wherever well founded doubt shall arise, it shall be construed most favorably towards the Choctaws. ARTICLE 19. The following reservations of land are hereby admitted. To Colonel David Fulsom four sections of which two shall include his present improvement, and two may be located elsewhere, on unoccupied, unimproved land. To I. Garland, Colonel Robert Cole, Tuppanahomer, John Pytchlynn, Charles Juzan, Johokebetubbe, Eaychahobia, Ofehoma, two sections, each to include their improvements, and to be bounded by sectional lines, and the same may be disposed of and sold with the consent of the President. And that others not provided for, may be provided for, there shall be reserved as follows: First. One section to each head of a family not exceeding Forty in number, who during the present year, may have had in actual cultivation, with a dwelling house thereon fifty acres or more. Secondly, three quarter sections after the manner aforesaid to each head of a family not exceeding four hundred and sixty, as shall have cultivated thirty acres and less than fifty, to be bounded by quarter section lines of survey, and to be contiguous and adjoining. Third; One half section as aforesaid to those who shall have cultivated from twenty to thirty acres the number not to exceed four hundred. Fourth; a quarter section as

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

472

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

aforesaid to such as shall have cultivated from twelve to twenty acres, the number not to exceed three hundred and fifty, and one half that quantity to such as shall have cultivated from two to twelve acres, the number also not to exceed three hundred and fifty persons. Each of said class of cases shall be subject to the limitations contained in the first class, and shall be so located as to include that part of the improvement which contains the dwelling house. If a greater number shall be found to be entitled to reservations under the several classes of this article, than is stipulated for under the limitation prescribed, then and in that case the Chiefs separately or together shall determine the persons who shall be excluded in the respective districts. Fifth; Any Captain the number not exceeding ninety persons, who under the provisions of this article shall receive less than a section, he shall be entitled, to an additional quantity of half a section adjoining to his other reservation. The several reservations secured under this article, may be sold with the consent of the President of the U.S. but should any prefer it or omit to take a reservation for the quantity he may be entitled to, the U.S. will on his removing pay fifty cents an acre, after reaching their new homes, provided that before the first of January next they shall adduce to the Agent, or some other authorized person to be appointed, proof of his claim and the quantity of it. Sixth; likewise children of the Choctaw Nation residing in the Nation, who have neither father nor mother a list of which, with satisfactory proof of Parentage and orphanage being filed with Agent in six months to be forwarded to the War Department, shall be entitled to a quarter section of Land, to be located under the direction of the President, and with his consent the same may be sold and the proceeds applied to some beneficial purpose for the benefit of said orphans. ARTICLE 20. The U.S. agree and stipulate as follows, that for the benefit and advantage of the Choctaw people, and to improve their condition, there shall be educated under the direction of the President and at the expense of the U.S. forty Choctaw youths for twenty years. This number shall be kept at school, and as they finish their education others, to supply their places shall be received for the period stated. The U.S. agree also to erect a Council House for the nation at some convenient central point, after their people shall be settled; and a House for each Chief,

www.abc-clio.com

also a Church for each of the three Districts, to be used also as school houses, until the Nation may conclude to build others; and for these purposes ten thousand dollars shall be appropriated; also fifty thousand dollars (viz.) twenty-five hundred dollars annually shall be given for the support of three teachers of schools for twenty years. Likewise there shall be furnished to the Nation, three Blacksmiths one for each district for sixteen years, and a qualified Mill Wright for five years; Also there shall be furnished the following articles, twenty-one hundred blankets, to each warrior who emigrates a rifle, moulds, wipers and ammunition. One thousand axes, ploughs, hoes, wheels and cards each; and four hundred looms. There shall also be furnished, one ton of iron and two hundred weight of steel annually to each District for sixteen years. ARTICLE 21. A few Choctaw Warriors yet survive who marched and fought in the army with General Wayne, the whole number stated not to exceed twenty. These it is agreed shall hereafter while they live, receive twenty-five dollars a year; a list of them to be early as practicable, and within six months, made out, and presented to the Agent, to be forwarded to the War Department. ARTICLE 22. The Chiefs of the Choctaws who have suggested that their people are in a state of rapid advancement in education and refinement, and have expressed a solicitude that they might have the privilege of a Delegate on the floor of the House of Representatives extended to them. The Commissioners do not feel that they can under a treaty stipulation accede to the request, but at their desire, present it in the Treaty, that Congress may consider of, and decide the application. Done, and signed, and executed by the commissioners of the United States, and the chiefs, captains, and head men of the Choctaw nation, at Dancing Rabbit creek, this 27th day of September, eighteen and thirty.

ABC-CLIO

Jno. H. Eaton, [L. S.], Jno. Coffee, [L. S.], Greenwood Leflore, [L. S.], Musholatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Nittucachee, his x mark, [L. S.], Holarterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

Hopiaunchabubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Zishomingo, his x mark, [L. S.], Captainthalke, his x mark, [L. S.], James Shield, his x mark, [L. S.], Pistiyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Yobalarunehabubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Holubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Robert Cole, his x mark, [L. S.], Mokelareharhopin, his x mark, [L. S.], Lewis Perry, his x mark, [L. S.], Artonamarstubbe, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopeatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoshahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Chuallahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Joseph Kincaide, his x mark, [L. S.], Eyarhocuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Iyacherhopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Offahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Archalater, his x mark, [L. S.], Onnahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Pisinhocuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Tullarhacher, his x mark, [L. S.], Little leader, his x mark, [L. S.], Maanhutter, his x mark, [L. S.], Cowehoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Tillamoer, his x mark, [L. S.], Imnullacha, his x mark, [L. S.], Artopilachubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Shupherunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Nitterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Oaklaryubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Pukumna, his x mark, [L. S.], Arpalar, his x mark, [L. S.], Holber, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoparmingo, his x mark, [L. S.], Isparhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Tieberhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishoholarter, his x mark, [L. S.], Mahayarchubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Artooklubbetushpar, his x mark, [L. S.], Metubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Arsarkatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Issaterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Chohtahmatahah, his x mark, [L. S.], Tunnuppashubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Okocharyer, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoshhopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Warsharshahopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Maarshunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Misharyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Daniel McCurtain, his x mark, [L. S.], Tushkerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

Hoktoontubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Nuknacrahookmarhee, his x mark, [L. S.], Mingo hoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], James Karnes, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishohakubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Narlanalar, his x mark, [L. S.], Pennasha, his x mark, [L. S.], Inharyarker, his x mark, [L. S.], Mottubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Narharyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishmaryubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], James McKing, [L. S.], Lewis Wilson, his x mark, [L. S.], Istonarkerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.], Hohinshamartarher, his x mark , [L. S.], Kinsulachubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Emarhinstubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Gysalndalra, bm, his x mark, [L. S.], Thomas Wall, [L. S.], Sam. S. Worcester, [L. S.], Arlartar, his x mark, [L. S.], Nittahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishonouan, his x mark, [L. S.], Warsharchahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Isaac James, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiaintushker, his x mark, [L. S.], Aryoshkermer, his x mark, [L. S.], Shemotar, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiaisketina, his x mark, [L. S.], Thomas Leflore, his x mark, [L. S.], Arnokechatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Shokoperlukna, his x mark, [L. S.], Posherhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Robert Folsom, his x mark, [L. S.], Arharyotubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Kushonolarter, his x mark, [L. S.], James Vaughan, his x mark, [L. S.], Phiplip, his x mark, [L. S.], Meshameye, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishteheka, his x mark, [L. S.], Heshohomme, his x mark, [L. S.], John McKolbery, his x mark, [L. S.], Benjm. James, his x mark, [L. S.], Tikbachahambe, his x mark, [L. S.], Aholiktube, his x mark, [L. S.], Walking Wolf, his x mark, [L. S.], John Waide, his x mark, [L. S.], Big Axe, his x mark, [L. S.], Bob, his x mark, [L. S.], Tushkochaubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Ittabe, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishowakayo, his x mark, [L. S.],

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

473

474

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

Folehommo, his x mark, [L. S.], John Garland, his x mark, [L. S.], Koshona, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishleyohamobe, his x mark, [L. S.], Jacob Folsom, [L. S.], William Foster, [L. S.], Ontioerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.], Hugh A. Foster, [L. S.], Pierre Juzan, [L. S.], Jno. Pitchlynn, jr., [L. S.], David Folsom, [L. S.], Sholohommastube, his x mark, [L. S.], Tesho, his x mark, [L. S.], Lauwechubee, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoshehammo, his x mark, [L. S.], Ofenowo, his x mark, [L. S.], Ahekoche, his x mark, [L. S.], Kaloshoube, his x mark, [L. S.], Atoko, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishtemeleche, his x mark, [L. S.], Emthtohabe, his x mark, [L. S.], Silas D. Fisher, his x mark, [L. S.], Isaac Folsom, his x mark, [L. S.], Hekatube, his x mark, [L. S.], Hakseche, his x mark, [L. S.], Jerry Carney, his x mark, [L. S.], John Washington, his x mark, [L. S.], Panshastubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], P. P. Pitchlynn, his x mark, [L. S.], Joel H. Nail, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopia Stonakey, his x mark, [L. S.], Kocohomma, his x mark, [L. S.], William Wade, his x mark, [L. S.], Panshstickubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Holittankchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Oklanowa, his x mark, [L. S.], Neto, his x mark, [L. S.], James Fletcher, his x mark, [L. S.], Silas D. Pitchlynn, [L. S.], William Trahorn, his x mark, [L. S.], Toshkahemmitto, his x mark, [L. S.], Tethetayo, his x mark, [L. S.], Emokloshahopie, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishoimita, his x mark, [L. S.], Thomas W. Foster, his x mark, [L. S.], Zadoc Brashears, his x mark, [L. S.], Levi Perkins, his x mark, [L. S.], Isaac Perry, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishlonocka Hoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Hiram King, his x mark, [L. S.], Ogla Enlah, his x mark, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

Nultlahtubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Tuska Hollattuh, his x mark, [L. S.], Kothoantchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Eyarpulubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Okentahubbe, his x mark, [L. S.], Living War Club, his x mark, [L. S.], John Jones, his x mark, [L. S.], Charles Jones, his x mark, [L. S.], Isaac Jones, his x mark, [L. S.], Hocklucha, his x mark, [L. S.], Muscogee, his x mark., [L. S.], Eden Nelson, his x mark, [L. S.]. In presence of— E. Breathitt secretary to the Commission, William Ward, agent for Choctaws, John Pitchlyn, United States interpreter, M. Mackey, United States interpreter, Geo. S. Gaines, of Alabama, R. P. Currin, Luke Howard, Sam. S. Worcester, Jno. N. Byrn, John Bell, Jno. Bond. SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES TO THE PRECEDING TREATY.

Sept. 28, 1830. | 7 Stat., 340. Various Choctaw persons have been presented by the Chiefs of the nation, with a desire that they might be provided for. Being particularly deserving, an earnestness has been manifested that provision might be made for them. It is therefore by the undersigned commissioners here assented to, with the understanding that they are to have no interest in the reservations which are directed and provided for under the general Treaty to which this is a supplement. As evidence of the liberal and kind feelings of the President and Government of the United States the Commissioners agree to the request as follows, (to wit) Pierre Juzan, Peter Pitchlynn, G. W. Harkins, Jack Pitchlynn, Israel Fulsom, Louis Laflore, Benjamin James, Joel H. Nail, Hopoynjahubbee, Onorkubbee, Benjamin Laflore, Michael Laflore and Allen Yates and wife shall be entitled to a reservation of two sections of land each to include their improvement where they at present reside, with the exception of the three first named persons and Benjamin Laflore, who are authorized to locate one of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830

their sections on any other unimproved and unoccupied land, within their respective districts. ARTICLE 2. And to each of the following persons there is allowed a reservation of a section and a half of land, (to wit) James L. McDonald, Robert Jones, Noah Wall, James Campbell, G. Nelson, Vaughn Brashears, R. Harris, Little Leader, S. Foster, J. Vaughn, L. Durans, Samuel Long, T. Magagha, Thos. Everge, Giles Thompson, Tomas Garland, John Bond, William Laflore, and Turner Brashears, the two first named persons, may locate one section each, and one section jointly on any unimproved and unoccupied land, these not residing in the Nation; The others are to include their present residence and improvement. Also one section is allowed to the following persons (to wit) Middleton Mackey, Wesley Train, Choclehomo, Moses Foster, D. W. Wall, Charles Scott, Molly Nail, Susan Colbert, who was formerly Susan James, Samuel Garland, Silas Fisher, D. McCurtain, Oaklahoma, and Polly Fillecuthey, to be located in entire sections to include their present residence and improvement, with the exception of Molly Nail and Susan Colbert, who are authorized to locate theirs, on any unimproved unoccupied land. John Pitchlynn has long and faithfully served the nation in character of U. States Interpreter, he has acted as such for forty years, in consideration it is agreed, in addition to what has been done for him there shall be granted to two of his children, (to wit) Silas Pitchlynn, and Thomas Pitchlynn one section of land each, to adjoin the location of their father; likewise to James Madison and Peter sons of Mushulatubbee one section of land each to include the old house and improvement where their father formerly lived on the old military road adjoining a large Prairie. And to Henry Groves son of the Chief Natticache there is one section of land given to adjoin his father’s land. And to each of the following persons half a section of land is granted on any unoccupied and unimproved lands in the Districts where they respectively live (to wit) Willis Harkins, James D. Hamilton, William Juzan, Tobias Laflore, Jo Doke, Jacob Fulsom, P. Hays, Samuel Worcester, George Hunter, William Train, Robert Nail and Alexander McKee.

www.abc-clio.com

475

And there is given a quarter section of land each to Delila and her five fatherless children, she being a Choctaw woman residing out of the nation; also the same quantity to Peggy Trihan, another Indian woman residing out of the nation and her two fatherless children; and to the widows of Pushmilaha, and Pucktshenubbee, who were formerly distinguished Chiefs of the nation and for their children four quarter sections of land, each in trust for themselves and their children. All of said last mentioned reservations are to be located under and by direction of the President of the U. States. ARTICLE 3. The Choctaw people now that they have ceded their lands are solicitous to get to their new homes early as possible and accordingly they wish that a party may be permitted to proceed this fall to ascertain whereabouts will be most advantageous for their people to be located. It is therefore agreed that three or four persons (from each of the three districts) under the guidance of some discreet and well qualified person or persons may proceed during this fall to the West upon an examination of the country. For their time and expenses the U. States agree to allow the said twelve persons two dollars a day each, not to exceed one hundred days, which is deemed to be ample time to make an examination. If necessary, pilots acquainted with the country will be furnished when they arrive in the West. ARTICLE 4. John Donly of Alabama who has several Choctaw grand children and who for twenty years has carried the mail through the Choctaw Nation, a desire by the Chiefs is expressed that he may have a section of land, it is accordingly granted, to be located in one entire section, on any unimproved and unoccupied land. Allen Glover and George S. Gaines licensed Traders in the Choctaw Nation, have accounts amounting to upwards of nine thousand dollars against the Indians who are unable to pay their said debts without distressing their families; a desire is expressed by the chiefs that two sections of land be set apart to be sold

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

476

Treaty with the Creeks, 1832

and the proceeds thereof to be applied toward the payment of the aforesaid debts. It is agreed that two sections of any unimproved and unoccupied land be granted to George S. Gaines who will sell the same for the best price he can obtain and apply the proceeds thereof to the credit of the Indians on their accounts due to the before mentioned Glover and Gaines; and shall make the application to the poorest Indian first. At the earnest and particular request of the Chief Greenwood Laflore there is granted to David Haley one half section of land to be located in a half section on any unoccupied and unimproved land as a compensation, for a journey to Washington City with dispatches to the Government and returning others to the Choctaw Nation. The foregoing is entered into, as supplemental to the treaty concluded yesterday. Done at Dancing Rabbit creek the 28th day of September, 1830. Jno. H. Eaton, [L. S.], Jno. Coffee, [L. S.], Greenwood Leflore, [L. S.], Nittucachee, his x mark, [L. S.], Mushulatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Offahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Eyarhoeuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Iyaeherhopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Holubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Onarhubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Robert Cole, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiaunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], David Folsom, [L. S.], John Garland, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Captain Thalko, his x mark, [L. S.], Pierre Juzan, [L. S.], Immarstarher, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoshimhamartar, his x mark, [L. S.]. In presence of— E. Breathitt, Secretary to Commissioners, W. Ward, Agent for Choctaws, M. Mackey, United States Interpreter, John Pitchlynn, United States Interpreter, R. P. Currin, Jno. W. Byrn, Geo. S. Gaines.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Creeks, 1832 Mar., 24, 1832. | 7 Stat., 366. | Proclamation, Apr. 4, 1832. Articles of a treaty made at the City of Washington between Lewis Cass, thereto specially authorized by the President of the United States, and the Creek tribe of Indians. ARTICLE 1. The Creek tribe of Indians cede to the United States all their land, East of the Mississippi river. ARTICLE 2. The United States engage to survey the said land as soon as the same can be conveniently done, after the ratification of this treaty, and when the same is surveyed to allow ninety principal Chiefs of the Creek tribe to select one section each, and every other head of a Creek family to select one half section each, which tracts shall be reserved from sale for their use for the term of five years, unless sooner disposed of by them. A census of these persons shall be taken under the direction of the President and the selections shall be made so as to include the improvements of each person within his selection, if the same can be so made, and if not, then all the persons belonging to the same town, entitled to selections, and who cannot make the same, so as to include their improvements, shall take them in one body in a proper form. And twenty sections shall be selected, under the direction of the President for the orphan children of the Creeks, and divided and retained or sold for their benefit as the President may direct. Provided however that no selections or locations under this treaty shall be so made as to include the agency reserve. ARTICLE 3. These tracts may be conveyed by the persons selecting the same, to any other persons for a fair consideration, in such manner as the President may direct. The contract shall be certified by some person appointed for that purpose by the President but shall not be valid ’till the President approves the same. A title shall be given by the United States on the completion of the payment. ARTICLE 4. At the end of five years, all the Creeks entitled to these selections, and desirous of remaining, shall receive patents therefor in fee simple, from the United States.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Creeks, 1832

ARTICLE 5. All intruders upon the country hereby ceded shall be removed therefrom in the same manner as intruders may be removed by law from other public land until the country is surveyed, and the selections made; excepting however from this provision those white persons who have made their own improvements, and not expelled the Creeks from theirs. Such persons may remain ’till their crops are gathered. After the country is surveyed and the selections made, this article shall not operate upon that part of it not included in such selections. But intruders shall, in the manner before described, be removed from these selections for the term of five years from the ratification of this treaty or until the same are conveyed to white persons.

477

dollars, shall be paid to the Creek tribe as soon as may be after the ratification hereof, to be applied to the payment of their just debts, and then to their own relief, and to be distributed as they may direct, and which shall be in full consideration of all improvements. ARTICLE 10. The sum of sixteen thousand dollars shall be allowed as a compensation to the delegation sent to this place, and for the payment of their expenses, and of the claims against them. ARTICLE 11. The following claims shall be paid by the United States.

ARTICLE 6. Twenty-nine sections in addition to the foregoing may be located, and patents for the same shall then issue to those persons, being Creeks, to whom the same may be assigned by the Creek tribe. But whenever the grantees of these tracts possess improvements, such tracts shall be so located as to include the improvements, and as near as may be in the centre. And there shall also be granted by patent to Benjamin Marshall, one section of land, to include his improvements on the Chatahoochee river, to be bounded for one mile in a direct line along the said river, and to run back for quantity. There shall also be granted to Joseph Bruner a colored man, one half section of land, for his services as an interpreter.

For ferries, bridges and causeways, three thousand dollars, provided that the same shall become the property of the United States. For the payment of certain judgments obtained against the chiefs eight thousand five hundred and seventy dollars. For losses for which they suppose the United States responsible, seven thousand seven hundred and ten dollars. For the payment of improvements under the treaty of 1826 one thousand dollars.

ARTICLE 7. All the locations authorized by this treaty, with the exception of that of Benjamin Marshall shall be made in conformity with the lines of the surveys; and the Creeks relinquish all claim for improvements.

The three following annuities shall be paid for life.

ARTICLE 8. An additional annuity of twelve thousand dollars shall be paid to the Creeks for the term of five years, and thereafter the said annuity shall be reduced to ten thousand dollars, and shall be paid for the term of fifteen years. All the annuities due to the Creeks shall be paid in such manner as the tribe may direct.

To the Blind Uchu King one hundred dollars.

ARTICLE 9. For the purpose of paying certain debts due by the Creeks, and to relieve them in their present distressed condition, the sum of one hundred thousand

www.abc-clio.com

To Tuske-hew-haw-Cusetaw two hundred dollars.

To Neah Mico one hundred dollars. There shall be paid the sum of fifteen dollars, for each person who has emigrated without expense to the United States, but the whole sum allowed under this provision shall not exceed fourteen hundred dollars.

ABC-CLIO

There shall be divided among the persons, who suffered in consequence of being

1-800-368-6868

478

Treaty with the Seminole, 1832

prevented from emigrating, three thousand dollars. The land hereby ceded shall remain as a fund from which all the foregoing payments except those in the ninth and tenth articles shall be paid. ARTICLE 12. The United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi, and join their countrymen there; and for this purpose it is agreed, that as fast as the Creeks are prepared to emigrate, they shall be removed at the expense of the United States, and shall receive subsistence while upon the journey, and for one year after their arrival at their new homes—Provided however, that this article shall not be construed so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they shall be free to go or stay, as they please.

ARTICLE 15. This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the United States. In testimony whereof, the said Lewis Cass, and the undersigned chiefs of the said tribe, have hereunto set their hands at the city of Washington, this 24th day of March, A. D. 1832. Lewis Cass, Opothleholo, his x mark, Tuchebatcheehadgo, his x mark, Efiematla, his x mark, Tuchebatche Micco, his x mark, Tomack Micco, his x mark, William McGilvery, his x mark, Benjamin Marshall. In the presence of— Samuel Bell, William R. King, John Tipton, William Wilkins, C. C. Clay, J. Speight, Samuel W. Mardis, J. C. Isacks, John Crowell, I. A., Benjamin Marshall, Thomas Carr, John H. Brodnax, Interpreters.

ARTICLE 13. There shall also be given to each emigrating warrior a rifle, moulds, wiper and ammunition and to each family one blanket. Three thousand dollars, to be expended as the President may direct, shall be allowed for the term of twenty years for teaching their children. As soon as half their people emigrate, one blacksmith shall be allowed them, and another when two-thirds emigrate, together with one ton of iron and two hundred weight of steel annually for each blacksmith.—These blacksmiths shall be supported for twenty years. ARTICLE 14. The Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians, nor shall any State or Territory ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves, so far as may be compatible with the general jurisdiction which Congress may think proper to exercise over them. And the United States will also defend them from the unjust hostilities of other Indians, and will also as soon as the boundaries of the Creek country West of the Mississippi are ascertained, cause a patent or grant to be executed to the Creek tribe; agreeably to the 3d section of the act of Congress of May 2d, [28,] 1830, entitled “An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States, or Territories, and for their removal West of the Mississippi.”

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 May 9, 1832. | 7 Stat., 368. | Proclamation, April 12, 1834. The Seminole Indians, regarding with just respect, the solicitude manifested by the President of the United States or the improvement of their condition, by recommending a removal to a country more suitable to their habits and wants than the one they at present occupy in the Territory of Florida, are willing that their confidential chiefs, Jumper, Fuch-a-lus-ti-had-jo, Charley Emartla, Coihad-jo, Holati Emartla Ya-hadjo; Sam Jones, accompanied by their agent Major Phagan, and their faithful interpreter Abraham, should be sent at the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Seminole, 1832

479

expense of the United States as early as convenient to examine the country assigned to the Creeks west of the Mississippi river, and should they be satisfied with the character of that country, and of the favorable disposition of the Creeks to reunite with the Seminoles as one people; the articles of the compact and agreement, herein stipulated at Payne’s landing on one Ocklewaha river, this ninth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between James Gadsden, for and in behalf of the Government of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs and head-men for and in behalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on the respective parties.

ARTICLE 4. The United States agree to extend the annuity for the support of a blacksmith, provided for in the sixth article of the treaty at Camp Moultrie for ten (10) years beyond the period therein stipulated, and in addition to the other annuities secured under that treaty: the United States agree to pay the sum of three thousand (3,000) dollars a year for fifteen (15) years, commencing after the removal of the whole tribe; these sums to be added to the Creek annuities, and the whole amount to be so divided, that the chiefs and warriors of the Seminole Indians may receive their equitable proportion of the same as members of the Creek confederation—

ARTICLE 1. The Seminole Indians relinquish to the United States, all claim to the lands they at present occupy in the Territory of Florida, and agree to emigrate to the country assigned to the Creeks, west of the Mississippi river; it being understood that an additional extent of territory, proportioned to their numbers, will be added to the Creek country, and that the Seminoles will be received as a constituent part of the Creek nation and be readmitted to all the privileges as members of the same.

ARTICLE 5. The United States will take the cattle belonging to the Seminoles at the valuation of some discreet person to be appointed by the President, and the same shall be paid for in money to the respective owners, after their arrival at their new homes; or other cattle such as may be desired will be furnished them, notice being given through their agent of their wishes upon this subject, before their removal, that time may be afforded to supply the demand.

ARTICLE 2. For and in consideration of the relinquishment of claim in the first article of this agreement, and in full compensation for all the improvements, which may have been made on the lands thereby ceded; the United States stipulate to pay to the Seminole Indians, fifteen thousand, four hundred (15,400) dollars, to be divided among the chiefs and warriors of the several towns, in a ratio proportioned to their population, the respective proportions of each to be paid on their arrival in the country they consent to remove to; it being understood that their faithful interpreters Abraham and Cudjo shall receive two hundred dollars each of the above sum, in full remuneration for the improvements to be abandoned on the lands now cultivated by them. ARTICLE 3. The United States agree to distribute as they arrive at their new homes in the Creek Territory, west of the Mississippi river, a blanket and a homespun frock, to each of the warriors, women and children of the Seminole tribe of Indians.

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 6. The Seminoles being anxious to be relieved from repeated vexatious demands for slaves and other property, alleged to have been stolen and destroyed by them, so that they may remove unembarrassed to their new homes; the United States stipulate to have the same property investigated, and to liquidate such as may be satisfactorily established, provided the amount does not exceed seven thousand (7,000) dollars.— ARTICLE 7. The Seminole Indians will remove within three (3) years after the ratification of this agreement, and the expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by the United States, and such subsistence shall also be furnished them for a term not exceeding twelve (12) months, after their arrival at their new residence; as in the opinion of the President, their numbers and circumstances may require, the emigration to commence as early as practicable in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three (1833), and with those Indians at present occupying the Big Swamp, and other parts of the country beyond the limits as defined in the second article of the treaty concluded at Camp Moultrie creek, so that the whole of that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

480

Treaty of Chicago, 1834

proportion of the Seminoles may be removed within the year aforesaid, and the remainder of the tribe, in about equal proportions, during the subsequent years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five, (1834 and 1835.)— In testimony whereof, the commissioner, James Gadsden, and the undersigned chiefs and head men of the Seminole Indians, have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed their seals. Done at camp at Payne’s landing, on the Ocklawaha river in the territory of Florida, on this ninth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States of America the fifty-sixth.

James Gadsden, [L. S.], Holati Emartla, his x mark, [L. S.], Jumper, his x mark, [L. S.], Fuch-ta-lus-ta-Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], Charley Emartla, his x mark, [L. S.], Coa Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], Ar-pi-uck-i, or Sam Jones, his x mark, [L. S.], Ya-ha Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], Mico-Noha, his x mark, [L. S.], Tokose-Emartla, or Jno. Hicks. his x mark, [L. S.], Cat-sha-Tusta-nuck-i, his x mark, [L. S.], Hola-at-a-Mico, his x mark, [L. S.], Hitch-it-i-Mico, his x mark, [L. S.], E-ne-hah, his x mark, [L. S.], Ya- ha- emartla Chup- ko, his mark, [L. S.], Moke-his-she-lar-ni, his x mark, [L. S.]. Witnesses: Douglas Vass, Secretary to Commissioner, John Phagan, Agent, Stephen Richards, Interpreter, Abraham, Interpreter, his x mark, Cudjo, Interpreter, his x mark, Erastus Rogers, B. Joscan.

Treaty of Chicago, 1834 Articles of a treaty made at Chicago, in the State of Illinois, on the twenty-sixth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

www.abc-clio.com

thirty-three, between George B. Porter, Thomas J. V. Owen and William Weatherford, Commissioners on the part of the United States of the one part, and the United Nation of Chippewa, Ottowa and Potawatamie Indians of the other part, being fully represented by the Chiefs and Head-men whose names are hereunto subscribed—which Treaty is in the following words, to wit: ARTICLE 1. The said United Nation of Chippewa, Ottowa, and Potawatamie Indians, cede to the United States all their land, along the western shore of Lake Michigan, and between this Lake and the land ceded to the United States by the Winnebago nation, at the treaty of Fort Armstrong made on the 15th September 1832—bounded on the north by the country lately ceded by the Menominees, and on the south by the country ceded at the treaty of Prairie du Chien made on the 29th July 1829—supposed to contain about five millions of acres. ARTICLE 2. In part consideration of the above cession it is hereby agreed, that the United States shall grant to the said United Nation of Indians to be held as other Indian lands are held which have lately been assigned to emigrating Indians, a tract of country west of the Mississippi river, to be assigned to them by the President of the United States—to be not less in quantity than five millions of acres, and to be located as follows: beginning at the mouth of Boyer’s river on the east side of the Missouri river, thence down the said river to the mouth of Naudoway river, thence due east to the west line of the State of Missouri, thence along the said State line to the northwest corner of the State, thence east along the said State line to the point where it is intersected by the western boundary line of the Sacs and Foxes— thence north along the said line of the Sacs and Foxes, so far as that when a straight line shall be run therefrom to the mouth of Boyer’s river (the place of beginning) it shall include five millions of acres. And as it is the wish of the Government of the United States that the said nation of Indians should remove to the country thus assigned to them as soon as conveniently can be done; and it is deemed advisable on the part of their Chiefs and Headmen that a deputation should visit the said country west of the Mississippi and thus be assured that full justice has been

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty of Chicago, 1834

done, it is hereby stipulated that the United States will defray the expenses of such deputation, to consist of not more than fifty persons, to be accompanied by not more than five individuals to be nominated by themselves, and the whole to be under the general direction of such officer of the United States Government as has been or shall be designated for the purpose.—And it is further agreed that as fast as the said Indians shall be prepared to emigrate, they shall be removed at the expense of the United States, and shall receive subsistence while upon the journey, and for one year after their arrival at their new homes.—It being understood, that the said Indians are to remove from all that part of the land now ceded, which is within the State of Illinois, immediately on the ratification of this treaty, but to be permitted to retain possession of the country north of the boundary line of the said State, for the term of three years, without molestation or interruption and under the protection of the laws of the United States. ARTICLE 3. And in further consideration of the above cession, it is agreed, that there shall be paid by the United States the sums of money hereinafter mentioned: to wit. One hundred thousand dollars to satisfy sundry individuals, in behalf of whom reservations were asked, which the Commissioners refused to grant: and also to indemnify the Chippewa tribe who are parties to this treaty for certain lands along the shore of Lake Michigan, to which they make claim, which have been ceded to the United States by the Menominee Indians— the manner in which the same is to be paid is set forth in Schedule “A” hereunto annexed. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars to satisfy the claims made against the said United Nation which they have here admitted to be justly due, and directed to be paid, according to Schedule “B” hereunto annexed. One hundred thousand dollars to be paid in goods and provisions, a part to be delivered on the signing of this treaty and the residue during the ensuing year.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

481

Two hundred and eighty thousand dollars to be paid in annuities of fourteen thousand dollars a year, for twenty years. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars to be applied to the erection of mills, farm houses, Indian houses and blacksmith shops, to agricultural improvements, to the purchase of agricultural implements and stock, and for the support of such physicians, millers, farmers, blacksmiths and other mechanics, as the President of the United States shall think proper to appoint. Seventy thousand dollars for purposes of education and the encouragement of the domestic arts, to be applied in such manner, as the President of the United States may direct.—[The wish of the Indians being expressed to the Commissioners as follows: The united nation of Chippewa, Ottowa and Potawatamie Indians being desirous to create a perpetual fund for the purposes of education and the encouragement of the domestic arts, wish to invest the sum of seventy thousand dollars in some safe stock, the interest of which only is to be applied as may be necessary for the above purposes. They therefore request the President of the United States, to make such investment for the nation as he may think best. If however, at any time hereafter, the said nation shall have made such advancement in civilization and have become so enlightened as in the opinion of the President and Senate of the United States they shall be capable of managing so large a fund with safety they may withdraw the whole or any part of it.] Four hundred dollars a year to be paid to Billy Caldwell, and three hundred dollars a year, to be paid to Alexander Robinson, for life, in addition to the annuities already granted them—Two hundred dollars a year to be paid to Joseph Lafromboise and two hundred dollars a year to be paid to Shabehnay, for life. Two thousand dollars to be paid to Waupon-eh-see and his band, and fifteen

1-800-368-6868

482

Treaty of Chicago, 1834

hundred dollars to Awn-kote and his band, as the consideration for nine sections of land, granted to them by the 3d Article of the Treaty of Prairie du Chien of the 29th of July 1829 which are hereby assigned and surrendered to the United States. ARTICLE 4. A just proportion of the annuity money, secured as well by former treaties as the present, shall be paid west of the Mississippi to such portion of the nation as shall have removed thither during the ensuing three years.—After which time, the whole amount of the annuities shall be paid at their location west of the Mississippi. ARTICLE 5. [Stricken out.] This treaty after the same shall have been ratified by the President and Senate of the United States, shall be binding on the contracting parties. In testimony whereof, the said George B. Porter, Thomas J. V. Owen, and William Weatherford, and the undersigned chiefs and head men of the said nation of Indians, have hereunto set their hands at Chicago, the said day and year. G. B. Porter, Th. J. V. Owen, William Weatherford, To-pen-e-bee, his x mark, Sau-ko-noek, Che-che-bin-quay, his x mark, Joseph, his x mark, Wah-mix-i-co, his x mark, Ob-wa-qua-unk, his x mark, N-saw-way-quet, his x mark, Puk-quech-a-min-nee, his x mark, Nah-che-wine, his x mark, Ke-wase, his x mark, Wah-bou-seh, his x mark, Mang-e-sett, his x mark, Caw-we-saut, his x mark, Ah-be-te-ke-zhic, his x mark, Pat-e-go-shuc, his x mark, E-to-wow-cote, his x mark, Shim-e-nah, his x mark, O-chee-pwaise, his x mark, Ce-nah-ge-win, his x mark,

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Shaw-waw-nas-see, his x mark, Shab-eh-nay, his x mark, Mac-a-ta-o-shic, his x mark, Squah-ke-zic, his x mark, Mah-che-o-tah-way, his x mark, Cha-ke-te-ah, his x mark, Me-am-ese, his x mark, Shay-tee, his x mark, Kee-new, his x mark, Ne-bay-noc-scum, his x mark, Naw-bay-caw, his x mark, O’Kee-mase, his x mark, Saw-o-tup, his x mark, Me-tai-way, his x mark, Na-ma-ta-way-shuc, his x mark, Shaw-waw-nuk-wuk, his x mark, Nah-che-wah, his x mark, Sho-bon-nier, his x mark, Me-nuk-quet, his x mark, Chis-in-ke-bah, his x mark, Mix-e-maung, his x mark, Nah-bwait, his x mark, Sen-e-bau-um, his x mark, Puk-won, his x mark, Wa-be-no-say, his x mark, Mon-tou-ish, his x mark, No-nee, his x mark, Mas-quat, his x mark, Sho-min, his x mark, Ah-take, his x mark, He-me-nah-wah, his x mark, Che-pec-co-quah, his x mark, Mis-quab-o-no-quah, his x mark, Wah-be-Kai, his x mark, Ma-ca-ta-ke-shic, his x mark, Sho-min, (2d.) his x mark, She-mah-gah, his x mark, O’ke-mah-wah-ba-see, his x mark, Na-mash, his x mark, Shab-y-a-tuk, his x mark, Ah-cah-o-mah, his x mark, Quah-quah, tah, his x mark, Ah-sag-a-mish-cum, his x mark, Pa-mob-a-mee, his x mark, Nay-o-say, his x mark, Ce-tah-quah, his x mark, Ce-ku-tay, his x mark, Sauk-ee, his x mark, Ah-quee-wee, his x mark, Ta-cau-ko, his x mark, Me-shim-e-nah, his x mark, Wah-sus-kuk, his x mark,

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

Pe-nay-o-cat, his x mark, Pay-maw-suc, his x mark, Pe-she-ka, his x mark, Shaw-we-mon-e-tay, his x mark, Ah-be-nab, his x mark, Sau-sau-quas-see, his x mark.

Dec. 29, 1835. | 7 Stat., 478. | Proclamation, May 23, 1836.

In presence of— Wm. Lee D. Ewing, secretary to commission, E. A. Brush, Luther Rice, interpreter, James Conner, interpreter, John T. Schermerhorn, commissioner, etc. west, A. C. Pepper, S. A. R. P. Gho. Kercheval, sub-agent, Geo. Bender, major, Fifth Regiment Infantry, D. Wilcox, captain, Fifth Regiment, J. M. Baxley, captain, Fifth Infantry, R. A. Forsyth, U. S. Army, L. T. Jamison, lieutenant, U. S. Army, E. K. Smith, lieutenant, Fifth Infantry, P. Maxwell, assistant surgeon, J. Allen, lieutenant, Fifth Infantry, I. P. Simonton, lieutenant, U. S. Army, George F. Turner, assistant surgeon, U. S. Army, Richd. J. Hamilton, Robert Stuart, Jona. McCarty, Daniel Jackson, of New York, Jno. H. Kinzie, Robt. A. Kinzie, G. S. Hubbard, J. C. Schwarz, adjutant general M. M. Jn. B. Beaubrier, James Kinzie, Jacob Beeson, Saml. Humes Porter, Andw. Porter, Gabriel Godfroy, A. H. Arndt, Laurie Marsh, Joseph Chaunier, John Watkins, B. B. Kercheval, Jas. W. Berry, Wm. French, Thomas Forsyth, Pierre Menard, Fils, Edmd. Roberts, Geo. Hunt, Isaac Nash.

www.abc-clio.com

483

Articles of a treaty, concluded at New Echota in the State of Georgia on the 29th day of Decr. 1835 by General William Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn commissioners on the part of the United States and the Chiefs Head Men and People of the Cherokee tribe of Indians. WHEREAS the Cherokees are anxious to make some arrangements with the Government of the United States whereby the difficulties they have experienced by a residence within the settled parts of the United States under the jurisdiction and laws of the State Governments may be terminated and adjusted; and with a view to reuniting their people in one body and securing a permanent home for themselves and their posterity in the country selected by their forefathers without the territorial limits of the State sovereignties, and where they can establish and enjoy a government of their choice and perpetuate such a state of society as may be most consonant with their views, habits and condition; and as may tend to their individual comfort and their advancement in civilization. And whereas a delegation of the Cherokee nation composed of Messrs. John Ross Richard Taylor Danl. McCoy Samuel Gunter and William Rogers with full power and authority to conclude a treaty with the United States did on the 28th day of February 1835 stipulate and agree with the Government of the United States to submit to the Senate to fix the amount which should be allowed the Cherokees for their claims and for a cession of their lands east of the Mississippi river, and did agree to abide by the award of the Senate of the United States themselves and to recommend the same to their people for their final determination. And whereas on such submission the Senate advised “that a sum not exceeding five millions of dollars be paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and possessions east of the Mississippi river.” And whereas this delegation after said award of the Senate had been made, were called upon to submit propositions as to its disposition to be arranged in a treaty which they refused to do, but insisted that the same “should be referred to their nation and there in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

484

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

general council to deliberate and determine on the subject in order to ensure harmony and good feeling among themselves.” And whereas a certain other delegation composed of John Ridge Elias Boudinot Archilla Smith S. W. Bell John West Wm. A. Davis and Ezekiel West, who represented that portion of the nation in favor of emigration to the Cherokee country west of the Mississippi entered into propositions for a treaty with John F. Schermerhorn commissioner on the part of the United States which were to be submitted to their nation for their final action and determination. And whereas the Cherokee people at their last October council at Red Clay, fully authorized and empowered a delegation or committee of twenty persons of their nation to enter into and conclude a treaty with the United States commissioner then present, at that place or elsewhere and as the people had good reason to believe that a treaty would then and there be made or at a subsequent council at New Echota which the commissioners it was well known and understood, were authorized and instructed to convene for said purpose; and since the said delegation have gone on to Washington city, with a view to close negotiations there, as stated by them notwithstanding they were officially informed by the United States commissioner that they would not be received by the President of the United States; and that the Government would transact no business of this nature with them, and that if a treaty was made it must be done here in the nation, where the delegation at Washington last winter urged that it should be done for the purpose of promoting peace and harmony among the people; and since these facts have also been corroborated to us by a communication recently received by the commissioner from the Government of the United States and read and explained to the people in open council and therefore believing said delegation can effect nothing and since our difficulties are daily increasing and our situation is rendered more and more precarious uncertain and insecure in consequence of the legislation of the States; and seeing no effectual way of relief, but in accepting the liberal overtures of the United States. And whereas Genl William Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn were appointed commissioners on the part of the United States, with full power and authority to conclude a treaty with the Cherokees

www.abc-clio.com

east and were directed by the President to convene the people of the nation in general council at New Echota and to submit said propositions to them with power and authority to vary the same so as to meet the views of the Cherokees in reference to its details. And whereas the said commissioners did appoint and notify a general council of the nation to convene at New Echota on the 21st day of December 1835; and informed them that the commissioners would be prepared to make a treaty with the Cherokee people who should assemble there and those who did not come they should conclude gave their assent and sanction to whatever should be transacted at this council and the people having met in council according to said notice. Therefore the following articles of a treaty are agreed upon and concluded between William Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn commissioners on the part of the United States and the chiefs and head men and people of the Cherokee nation in general council assembled this 29th day of Decr 1835. ARTICLE 1. The Cherokee nation hereby cede relinquish and convey to the United States all the lands owned claimed or possessed by them east of the Mississippi river, and hereby release all their claims upon the United States for spoliations of every kind for and in consideration of the sum of five millions of dollars to be expended paid and invested in the manner stipulated and agreed upon in the following articles. But as a question has arisen between the commissioners and the Cherokees whether the Senate in their resolution by which they advised “that a sum not exceeding five millions of dollars be paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and possessions east of the Mississippi river” have included and made any allowance or consideration for claims for spoliations it is therefore agreed on the part of the United States that this question shall be again submitted to the Senate for their consideration and decision and if no allowance was made for spoliations that then an additional sum of three hundred thousand dollars be allowed for the same. ARTICLE 2. Whereas by the treaty of May 6th 1828 and the supplementary treaty thereto of Feb. 14th 1833 with the Cherokees west of the Mississippi the United States guarantied and secured to be conveyed by patent, to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

the Cherokee nation of Indians the following tract of country “Beginning at a point on the old western territorial line of Arkansas Territory being twenty-five miles north from the point where the territorial line crosses Arkansas river, thence running from said north point south on the said territorial line where the said territorial line crosses Verdigris river; thence down said Verdigris river to the Arkansas river; thence down said Arkansas to a point where a stone is placed opposite the east or lower bank of Grand river at its junction with the Arkansas; thence running south forty-four degrees west one mile; thence in a straight line to a point four miles northerly, from the mouth of the north fork of the Canadian; thence along the said four mile line to the Canadian; thence down the Canadian to the Arkansas; thence down the Arkansas to that point on the Arkansas where the eastern Choctaw boundary strikes said river and running thence with the western line of Arkansas Territory as now defined, to the southwest corner of Missouri; thence along the western Missouri line to the land assigned the Senecas; thence on the south line of the Senecas to Grand river; thence up said Grand river as far as the south line of the Osage reservation, extended if necessary; thence up and between said south Osage line extended west if necessary, and a line drawn due west from the point of beginning to a certain distance west, at which a line running north and south from said Osage line to said due west line will make seven millions of acres within the whole described boundaries. In addition to the seven millions of acres of land thus provided for and bounded, the United States further guaranty to the Cherokee nation a perpetual outlet west, and a free and unmolested use of all the country west of the western boundary of said seven millions of acres, as far west as the sovereignty of the United States and their right of soil extend: Provided however That if the saline or salt plain on the western prairie shall fall within said limits prescribed for said outlet, the right is reserved to the United States to permit other tribes of red men to get salt on said plain in common with the Cherokees; And letters patent shall be issued by the United States as soon as practicable for the land hereby guarantied.” And whereas it is apprehended by the Cherokees that in the above cession there is not contained a sufficient quantity of land for the accommodation of the whole nation on their removal west of the Missis-

www.abc-clio.com

485

sippi the United States in consideration of the sum of five hundred thousand dollars therefore hereby covenant and agree to convey to the said Indians, and their descendants by patent, in fee simple the following additional tract of land situated between the west line of the State of Missouri and the Osage reservation beginning at the southeast corner of the same and runs north along the east line of the Osage lands fifty miles to the northeast corner thereof; and thence east to the west line of the State of Missouri; thence with said line south fifty miles; thence west to the place of beginning; estimated to contain eight hundred thousand acres of land; but it is expressly understood that if any of the lands assigned the Quapaws shall fall within the aforesaid bounds the same shall be reserved and excepted out of the lands above granted and a pro rata reduction shall be made in the price to be allowed to the United States for the same by the Cherokees. ARTICLE 3. The United States also agree that the lands above ceded by the treaty of Feb. 14 1833, including the outlet, and those ceded by this treaty shall all be included in one patent executed to the Cherokee nation of Indians by the President of the United States according to the provisions of the act of May 28 1830. It is, however, agreed that the military reservation at Fort Gibson shall be held by the United States. But should the United States abandon said post and have no further use for the same it shall revert to the Cherokee nation. The United States shall always have the right to make and establish such post and military roads and forts in any part of the Cherokee country, as they may deem proper for the interest and protection of the same and the free use of as much land, timber, fuel and materials of all kinds for the construction and support of the same as may be necessary; provided that if the private rights of individuals are interfered with, a just compensation therefor shall be made. ARTICLE 4. The United States also stipulate and agree to extinguish for the benefit of the Cherokees the titles to the reservations within their country made in the Osage treaty of 1825 to certain half-breeds and for this purpose they hereby agree to pay to the persons to whom the same belong or have been assigned or to their agents or guardians whenever they shall execute after the ratification of this treaty a satisfactory conveyance for the same, to the United States, the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

486

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

sum of fifteen thousand dollars according to a schedule accompanying this treaty of the relative value of the several reservations. And whereas by the several treaties between the United States and the Osage Indians the Union and Harmony Missionary reservations which were established for their benefit are now situated within the country ceded by them to the United States; the former being situated in the Cherokee country and the latter in the State of Missouri. It is therefore agreed that the United States shall pay the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for the improvements on the same what they shall be appraised at by Capt. Geo. Vashon Cherokee sub-agent Abraham Redfield and A. P. Chouteau or such persons as the President of the United States shall appoint and the money allowed for the same shall be expended in schools among the Osages and improving their condition. It is understood that the United States are to pay the amount allowed for the reservations in this article and not the Cherokees. ARTICLE 5. The United States hereby covenant and agree that the lands ceded to the Cherokee nation in the forgoing article shall, in no future time without their consent, be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory. But they shall secure to the Cherokee nation the right by their national councils to make and carry into effect all such laws as they may deem necessary for the government and protection of the persons and property within their own country belonging to their people or such persons as have connected themselves with them: provided always that they shall not be inconsistent with the constitution of the United States and such acts of Congress as have been or may be passed regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians; and also, that they stall not be considered as extending to such citizens and army of the United States as may travel or reside in the Indian country by permission according to the laws and regulations established by the Government of the same. ARTICLE 6. Perpetual peace and friendship shall exist between the citizens of the United States and the Cherokee Indians. The United States agree to protect the Cherokee nation from domestic strife and foreign enemies

www.abc-clio.com

and against intestine wars between the several tribes. The Cherokees shall endeavor to preserve and maintain the peace of the country and not make war upon their neighbors; they shall also be protected against interruption and intrusion from citizens of the United States, who may attempt to settle in the country without their consent; and all such persons shall be removed from the same by order of the President of the United States. But this is not intended to prevent the residence among them of useful farmers, mechanics and teachers for the instruction of Indians according to treaty stipulations. ARTICLE 7. The Cherokee nation having already made great progress in civilization and deeming it important that every proper and laudable inducement should be offered to their people to improve their condition as well as to guard and secure in the most effectual manner the rights guarantied to them in this treaty, and with a view to illustrate the liberal and enlarged policy of the Government of the United States towards the Indians in their removal beyond the territorial limits of the States, it is stipulated that they shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same. ARTICLE 8. The United States also agree and stipulate to remove the Cherokees to their new homes and to subsist them one year after their arrival there and that a sufficient number of steamboats and baggage-wagons shall be furnished to remove them comfortably, and so as not to endanger their health, and that a physician well supplied with medicines shall accompany each detachment of emigrants removed by the Government. Such persons and families as in the opinion of the emigrating agent are capable of subsisting and removing themselves shall be permitted to do so; and they shall be allowed in full for all claims for the same twenty dollars for each member of their family; and in lieu of their one year ’s rations they shall be paid the sum of thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents if they prefer it. Such Cherokees also as reside at present out of the nation and shall remove with them in two years west of the Mississippi shall be entitled to allowance for removal and subsistence as above provided.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

ARTICLE 9. The United States agree to appoint suitable agents who shall make a just and fair valuation of all such improvements now in the possession of the Cherokees as add any value to the lands; and also of the ferries owned by them, according to their net income; and such improvements and ferries from which they have been dispossessed in a lawless manner or under any existing laws of the State where the same may be situated. The just debts of the Indians shall be paid out of any monies due them for their improvements and claims; and they shall also be furnished at the discretion of the President of the United States with a sufficient sum to enable them to obtain the necessary means to remove themselves to their new homes, and the balance of their dues shall be paid them at the Cherokee agency west of the Mississippi. The missionary establishments shall also be valued and appraised in a like manner and the amount of them paid over by the United States to the treasurers of the respective missionary societies by whom they have been established and improved in order to enable them to erect such buildings and make such improvements among the Cherokees west of the Mississippi as they may deem necessary for their benefit. Such teachers at present among the Cherokees as this council shall select and designate shall be removed west of the Mississippi with the Cherokee nation and on the same terms allowed to them. ARTICLE 10. The President of the United States shall invest in some safe and most productive public stocks of the country for the benefit of the whole Cherokee nation who have removed or shall remove to the lands assigned by this treaty to the Cherokee nation west of the Mississippi the following sums as a permanent fund for the purposes hereinafter specified and pay over the net income of the same annually to such person or persons as shall be authorized or appointed by the Cherokee nation to receive the same and their receipt shall be a full discharge for the amount paid to them viz: the sum of two hundred thousand dollars in addition to the present annuities of the nation to constitute a general fund the interest of which shall be applied annually by the council of the nation to such purposes as they may deem best for the general interest of their people. The sum of fifty thousand dollars to constitute an orphans’ fund the annual income of which shall be

www.abc-clio.com

487

expended towards the support and education of such orphan children as are destitute of the means of subsistence. The sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in addition to the present school fund of the nation shall constitute a permanent school fund, the interest of which shall be applied annually by the council of the nation for the support of common schools and such a literary institution of a higher order as may be established in the Indian country. And in order to secure as far as possible the true and beneficial application of the orphans’ and school fund the council of the Cherokee nation when required by the President of the United States shall make a report of the application of those funds and he shall at all times have the right if the funds have been misapplied to correct any abuses of them and direct the manner of their application for the purposes for which they were intended. The council of the nation may by giving two years’ notice of their intention withdraw their funds by and with the consent of the President and Senate of the United States, and invest them in such manner as they may deem most proper for their interest. The United States also agree and stipulate to pay the just debts and claims against the Cherokee nation held by the citizens of the same and also the just claims of citizens of the United States for services rendered to the nation and the sum of sixty thousand dollars is appropriated for this purpose but no claims against individual persons of the nation shall be allowed and paid by the nation. The sum of three hundred thousand dollars is hereby set apart to pay and liquidate the just claims of the Cherokees upon the United States for spoliations of every kind, that have not been already satisfied under former treaties. ARTICLE 11. The Cherokee nation of Indians believing it will be for the interest of their people to have all their funds and annuities under their own direction and future disposition hereby agree to commute their permanent annuity of ten thousand dollars for the sum of two hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, the same to be invested by the President of the United States as a part of the general fund of the nation; and their present school fund amounting to about fifty thousand dollars shall constitute a part of the permanent school fund of the nation. ARTICLE 12. Those individuals and families of the Cherokee nation that are averse to a removal to the Cherokee

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

488

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

country west of the Mississippi and are desirous to become citizens of the States where they reside and such as are qualified to take care of themselves and their property shall be entitled to receive their due portion of all the personal benefits accruing under this treaty for their claims, improvements and per capita; as soon as an appropriation is made for this treaty. Such heads of Cherokee families as are desirous to reside within the States of No. Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama subject to the laws of the same; and who are qualified or calculated to become useful citizens shall be entitled, on the certificate of the commissioners to a preemption right to one hundred and sixty acres of land or one quarter section at the minimum Congress price; so as to include the present buildings or improvements of those who now reside there and such as do not live there at present shall be permitted to locate within two years any lands not already occupied by persons entitled to pre-emption privilege under this treaty and if two or more families live on the same quarter section and they desire to continue their residence in these States and are qualified as above specified they shall, on receiving their pre-emption certificate be entitled to the right of pre-emption to such lands as they may select not already taken by any person entitled to them under this treaty. It is stipulated and agreed between the United States and the Cherokee people that John Ross, James Starr, George Hicks, John Gunter, George Chambers, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot, George Sanders, John Martin , William Rogers, Roman Nose Situwake, and John Timpson shall be a committee on the part of the Cherokees to recommend such persons for the privilege of pre-emption rights as may be deemed entitled to the same under the above articles and to select the missionaries who shall be removed with the nation; and that they be hereby fully empowered and authorized to transact all business on the part of the Indians which may arise in carrying into effect the provisions of this treaty and settling the same with the United States. If any of the persons above mentioned should decline acting or be removed by death; the vacancies shall be filled by the committee themselves. It is also understood and agreed that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be expended by the commissioners in such manner as the com-

www.abc-clio.com

mittee deem best for the benefit of the poorer class of Cherokees as shall remove west or have removed west and are entitled to the benefits of this treaty. The same to be delivered at the Cherokee agency west as soon after the removal of the nation as possible. ARTICLE 13. In order to make a final settlement of all the claims of the Cherokees for reservations granted under former treaties to any individuals belonging to the nation by the United States it is therefore hereby stipulated and agreed and expressly understood by the parties to this treaty—that all the Cherokees and their heirs and descendants to whom any reservations have been made under any former treaties with the United States, and who have not sold or conveyed the same by deed or otherwise and who in the opinion of the commissioners have complied with the terms on which the reservations were granted as far as practicable in the several cases; and which reservations have since been sold by the United States shall constitute a just claim against the United States and the original reservee or their heirs or descendants shall be entitled to receive the present value thereof from the United States as unimproved lands. And all such reservations as have not been sold by the United States and where the terms on which the reservations were made in the opinion of the commissioners have been complied with as far as practicable, they or their heirs or descendants shall be entitled to the same. They are hereby granted and confirmed to them—and also all persons who were entitled to reservations under the treaty of 1817 and who as far as practicable in the opinion of the commissioners, have complied with the stipulations of said treaty, although by the treaty of 1819 such reservations were included in the unceded lands belonging to the Cherokee nation are hereby confirmed to them and they shall be entitled to receive a grant for the same. And all such reservees as were obliged by the laws of the States in which their reservations were situated, to abandon the same or purchase them from the States shall be deemed to have a just claim against the United States for the amount by them paid to the States with interest thereon for such reservations and if obliged to abandon the same, to the present value of such reservations as unimproved lands but in all cases where the reservees have sold their reservations or any part thereof and conveyed the same by deed or otherwise and have been paid for the same, they their heirs or

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

descendants or their assigns shall not be considered as having any claims upon the United States under this article of the treaty nor be entitled to receive any compensation for the lands thus disposed of. It is expressly understood by the parties to this treaty that the amount to be allowed for reservations under this article shall not be deducted out of the consideration money allowed to the Cherokees for their claims for spoilations and the cession of their lands; but the same is to be paid for independently by the United States as it is only a just fulfillment of former treaty stipulations. ARTICLE 14. It is also agreed on the part of the United States that such warriors of the Cherokee nation as were engaged on the side of the United States in the late war with Great Britain and the southern tribes of Indians, and who were wounded in such service shall be entitled to such pensions as shall be allowed them by the Congress of the United States to commence from the period of their disability. ARTICLE 15. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties to this treaty that after deducting the amount which shall be actually expended for the payment for improvements, ferries, claims, for spoliations, removal subsistence and debts and claims upon the Cherokee nation and for the additional quantity of lands and goods for the poorer class of Cherokees and the several sums to be invested for the general national funds; provided for in the several articles of this treaty the balance whatever the same may be shall be equally divided between all the people belonging to the Cherokee nation east according to the census just completed; and such Cherokees as have removed west since June 1833 who are entitled by the terms of their enrollment and removal to all the benefits resulting from the final treaty between the United States and the Cherokees east they shall also be paid for their improvements according to their approved value before their removal where fraud has not already been shown in their valuation. ARTICLE 16. It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the Cherokees that they shall remove to their new homes within two years from the ratification of this treaty and that during such time the United States shall protect and defend them in their possessions and property and free use and occupation of the same and such per-

www.abc-clio.com

489

sons as have been dispossessed of their improvements and houses; and for which no grant has actually issued previously to the enactment of the law of the State of Georgia, of December 1835 to regulate Indian occupancy shall be again put in possession and placed in the same situation and condition, in reference to the laws of the State of Georgia, as the Indians that have not been dispossessed; and if this is not done, and the people are left unprotected, then the United States shall pay the several Cherokees for their losses and damages sustained by them in consequence thereof. And it is also stipulated and agreed that the public buildings and improvements on which they are situated at New Echota for which no grant has been actually made previous to the passage of the above recited act if not occupied by the Cherokee people shall be reserved for the public and free use of the United States and the Cherokee Indians for the purpose of settling and closing all the Indian business arising under this treaty between the commissioners of claims and the Indians. The United States, and the several States interested in the Cherokee lands, shall immediately proceed to survey the lands ceded by this treaty; but it is expressly agreed and understood between the parties that the agency buildings and that tract of land surveyed and laid off for the use of Colonel R. J. Meigs Indian agent or heretofore enjoyed and occupied by his successors in office shall continue subject to the use and occupancy of the United States, or such agent as may be engaged specially superintending the removal of the tribe. ARTICLE 17. All the claims arising under or provided for in the several articles of this treaty, shall be examined and adjudicated by such commissioners as shall be appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States for that purpose and their decision shall be final and on their certificate of the amount due the several claimants they shall be paid by the United States. All stipulations in former treaties which have not been superseded or annulled by this shall continue in full force and virtue. ARTICLE 18. Whereas in consequence of the unsettled affairs of the Cherokee people and the early frosts, their crops are insufficient to support their families and great distress is likely to ensue and whereas the nation

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

490

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

will not, until after their removal be able advantageously to expend the income of the permanent funds of the nation it is therefore agreed that the annuities of the nation which may accrue under this treaty for two years, the time fixed for their removal shall be expended in provision and clothing for the benefit of the poorer class of the nation and the United States hereby agree to advance the same for that purpose as soon after the ratification of this treaty as an appropriation for the same shall be made. It is however not intended in this article to interfere with that part of the annuities due the Cherokees west by the treaty of 1819.

George W. Adair, [L. S.], Elias Boudinot, [L. S.], James Starr, his x mark, [L. S.], Jesse Half-breed, his x mark, [L. S.]. Signed and sealed in presence of— Western B. Thomas, secretary, Ben. F. Currey, special agent, M. Wolfe Batman, first lieutenant, sixth U. S. infantry, disbursing agent, Jon. L. Hooper, lieutenant, fourth Infantry, C. M Hitchcock, M. D., assistant surgeon, U.S.A, G. W. Currey, Wm. H. Underwood, Cornelius D. Terhune, John W. H. Underwood.

ARTICLE 19. This treaty after the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States shall be obligatory on the contracting parties.

In compliance with instructions of the council at New Echota, we sign this treaty.

ARTICLE 20. [Supplemental article. Stricken out by Senate.]

Stand Watie, John Ridge.

In testimony whereof, the commissioners and the chiefs, head men, and people whose names are hereunto annexed, being duly authorized by the people in general council assembled, have affixed their hands and seals for themselves, and in behalf of the Cherokee nation.

March 1, 1836. Witnesses: Elbert Herring, Alexander H. Everett, John Robb, D. Kurtz, Wm.Y. Hansell, Samuel J. Potts, Jno. Litle, S. Rockwell.

I have examined the foregoing treaty, and although not present when it was made, I approve its provisions generally, and therefore sign it. Wm. Carroll, J. F. Schermerhorn, Major Ridge, his x mark, [L. S.], James Foster, his x mark, [L. S.], Tesa-ta-esky, his x mark, [L. S.], Charles Moore, his x mark, [L. S.], George Chambers, his x mark, [L. S.], Tah-yeske, his x mark, [L. S.], Archilla Smith, his x mark, [L. S.], Andrew Ross, [L. S.], William Lassley, [L. S.], Cae-te-hee, his x mark , [L. S.], Te-gah-e-ske, his x mark, [L. S.], Robert Rogers, [L. S.], John Gunter, [L. S.], John A. Bell, [L. S.], Charles F. Foreman, [L. S.], William Rogers, [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

Dec. 31, 1835 | 7 Stat., 487. Whereas the western Cherokees have appointed a delegation to visit the eastern Cherokees to assure them of the friendly disposition of their people and their desire that the nation should again be united as one people and to urge upon them the expediency of accepting the overtures of the Government; and that, on their removal they may be assured of a hearty welcome and an equal participation with them in all the benefits and privileges of the Cherokee country west and the undersigned two of said delegation being the only delegates in the eastern nation from the west at the signing and sealing of the treaty lately concluded at New Echota between their east-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837

ern brethren and the United States; and having fully understood the provisions of the same they agree to it in behalf of the western Cherokees. But it is expressly understood that nothing in this treaty shall affect any claims of the western Cherokees on the United States. In testimony whereof, we have, this 31st day of December, 1835, hereunto set our hands and seals. James Rogers, John Smith, Delegates from the western Cherokees.

thence southerly, on a course parallel with that of the Wisconsin river, to the line dividing the territories of the Chippewas and Menomonies; thence to the Plover Portage; thence along the southern boundary of the Chippewa country, to the commencement of the boundary line dividing it from that of the Sioux, half a days march below the falls on the Chippewa river; thence with said boundary line to the mouth of Wah-tap river, at its junction with the Mississippi; and thence up the Mississippi to the place of beginning. ARTICLE 2. In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States agree to make to the Chippewa nation, annually, for the term of twenty years, from the date of the ratification of this treaty, the following payments.

Test: Ben. F. Currey, special agent, M. W. Batman, first lieutenant, Sixth Infantry, Jno. L. Hooper, lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, Elias Boudinot.

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at St. Peters (the confluence of the St. Peters and Mississippi rivers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the United States of America, by their commissioner, Henry Dodge, Governor of said Territory, and the Chippewa nation of Indians, by their chiefs and headmen. ARTICLE 1. The said Chippewa nation cede to the United States all that tract of country included within the following boundaries: Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing and Mississippi rivers, between twenty and thirty miles above where the Mississippi is crossed by the fortysixth parallel of north latitude, and running thence to the north point of Lake St. Croix, one of the sources of the St. Croix river; thence to and along the dividing ridge between the waters of Lake Superior and those of the Mississippi, to the sources of the Ocha-sua-sepe a tributary of the Chippewa river; thence to a point on the Chippewa river, twenty miles below the outlet of Lake De Flambeau; thence to the junction of the Wisconsin and Pelican rivers; thence on an east course twenty-five miles;

www.abc-clio.com

491

1. Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid in money. 2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be delivered in goods. 3. Three thousand dollars for establishing three blacksmiths shops, supporting the blacksmiths, and furnishing them with iron and steel. 4. One thousand dollars for farmers, and for supplying them and the Indians, with implements of labor, with grain or seed; and whatever else may be necessary to enable them to carry on their agricultural pursuits. 5. Two thousand dollars in provisions. 6. Five hundred dollars in tobacco. The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at the same time with the goods, and the money to be paid; which time or times, as well as the place or places where they are to be delivered, shall be fixed upon under the direction of the President of the United States. The blacksmiths shops to be placed at such points in the Chippewa country as shall be designated by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or under his direction. If at the expiration of one or more years the Indians should prefer to receive goods, instead of the nine thousand dollars agreed to be paid to them in money, they shall be at liberty to do so. Or, should they conclude to appropriate a portion of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

492

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837

that annuity to the establishment and support of a school or schools among them, this shall be granted them. ARTICLE 3. The sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be paid by the United States, to the half-breeds of the Chippewa nation, under the direction of the President. It is the wish of the Indians that their two subagents Daniel P. Bushnell, and Miles M. Vineyard, superintend the distribution of this money among their half-breed relations. ARTICLE 4. The sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be applied to the payment, by the United States, of certain claims against the Indians; of which amount twenty-eight thousand dollars shall, at their request, be paid to William A. Aitkin, twenty-five thousand to Lyman M. Warren, and the balance applied to the liquidation of other just demands against them— which they acknowledge to be the case with regard to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman, for the sum of five thousand dollars; and they request that it be paid. ARTICLE 5. The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States. ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be obligatory from and after its ratification by the President and Senate of the United States. Done at St. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsin the twenty-ninth day of July eighteen hundred and thirty-seven. Henry Dodge, Commissioner. From Leech lake: Aish-ke-bo-ge-koshe, or Flat Mouth, R-che-o-sau-ya, or the Elder Brother, Chiefs. Pe-zhe-kins, the Young Buffalo, Ma-ghe-ga-bo, or La Trappe, O-be-gwa-dans, the Chief of the Earth, Wa-bose, or the Rabbit,

www.abc-clio.com

Che-a-na-quod, or the Big Cloud, Warriors. From Gull lake and Swan river: Pa-goo-na-kee-zhig, or the Hole in the Day, Songa-ko-mig, or the Strong Ground, Chiefs. Wa-boo-jig, or the White Fisher, Ma-cou-da, or the Bear’s Heart, Warriors. From St. Croix river: Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo, Ka-be-ma-be, or the Wet Month, Chiefs. Pa-ga-we-we-wetung, Coming Home Hollowing, Ya-banse, or the Young Buck, Kis-ke-ta-wak, or the Cut Ear, Warriors. From Lake Courteoville: Pa-qua-a-mo, or the Wood Pecker. Chief. From Lac De Flambeau: Pish-ka-ga-ghe, or the White Crow, Na-wa-ge-wa, or the Knee, O-ge-ma-ga, or the Dandy, Pa-se-quam-jis, or the Commissioner, Wa-be-ne-me, or the White Thunder, Chiefs. From La Pointe, (on Lake Superior): Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo, Ta-qua-ga-na, or Two Lodges Meeting, Cha-che-que-o, Chiefs. From Mille Lac: Wa-shask-ko-kone, or Rats Liver, Wen-ghe-ge-she-guk, or the First Day, Chiefs. Ada-we-ge-shik, or Both Ends of the Sky, Ka-ka-quap, or the Sparrow, Warriors. From Sandy Lake: Ka-nan-da-wa-win-zo, or Le Brocheux, We-we-shan-shis, the Bad Boy, or Big Mouth, Ke-che-wa-me-te-go, or the Big Frenchman, Chiefs.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842

Na-ta-me-ga-bo, the Man that stands First, Sa-ga-ta-gun, or Spunk, Warriors. From Snake river: Naudin, or the Wind, Sha-go-bai, or the Little Six, Pay-ajik, or the Lone Man, Na-qua-na-bie, or the Feather, Chiefs. Ha-tau-wa, Wa-me-te-go-zhins, the Little Frenchman, Sho-ne-a, or Silver, Warriors. From Fond du Lac, (on Lake Superior): Mang-go-sit, or the Loons Foot, Shing-go-be, or the Spruce, Chiefs. From Red Cedar lake: Mont-so-mo, or the Murdering Yell. From Red lake: Francois Goumean (a half breed). From Leech lake: Sha-wa-ghe-zhig, or the Sounding Sky, Wa-zau-ko-ni-a, or Yellow Robe. Warriors. Signed in presence of— Verplanck Van Antwerp, Secretary to the Commissioner. M. M. Vineyard, U. S. Sub-Indian Agent. Daniel P. Bushnell. Law. Taliaferro, Indian Agent at St. Peters. Martin Scott, Captain, Fifth Regiment Infantry. J. Emerson, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. Army. H. H. Sibley. H. L. Dousman. S. C. Stambaugh. E. Lockwood. Lyman M. Warren. J. N. Nicollet. Harmen Van Antwerp. Wm. H. Forbes. Jean Baptiste Dubay, Interpreter. Peter Quinn, Interpreter. S. Campbell, U. S. Interpreter. Stephen Bonga, Interpreter. Wm. W Coriell.

www.abc-clio.com

493

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe of Lake Superior, in the Territory of Wisconsin, between Robert Stuart commissioner on the part of the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Superior, by their chiefs and headmen.

ARTICLE 1. The Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, cede to the United States all the country within the following bounderies; viz: beginning at the mouth of Chocolate river of Lake Superior; thence northwardly across said lake to intersect the boundery line between the United States and the Province of Canada; thence up said Lake Superior, to the mouth of the St. Louis, or Fond du Lac river (including all the islands in said lake); thence up said river to the American Fur Company’s trading post, at the southwardly bend thereof, about 22 miles from its mouth; thence south to intersect the line of the treaty of 29th July 1837, with the Chippewas of the Mississippi; thence along said line to its southeastwardly extremity, near the Plover portage on the Wisconsin river; thence northeastwardly, along the boundery line, between the Chippewas and Menomonees, to its eastern termination, (established by the treaty held with the Chippewas, Menomonees, and Winnebagoes, at Butte des Morts, August 11th 1827) on the Skonawby river of Green Bay; thence northwardly to the source of Chocolate river; thence down said river to its mouth, the place of beginning; it being the intention of the parties to this treaty, to include in this cession, all the Chippewa lands eastwardly of the aforesaid line running from the American Fur Company’s trading post on the Fond du Lac river to the intersection of the line of the treaty made with the Chippewas of the Mississippi July 29th 1837.

ARTICLE 2. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United States, and that the laws of the United States shall be continued in force, in respect to their trade and inter course with the whites, until otherwise ordered by Congress.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

494

Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842

ARTICLE 3. It is agreed by the parties to this treaty, that whenever the Indians shall be required to remove from the ceded district, all the unceded lands belonging to the Indians of Fond du Lac, Sandy Lake, and Mississippi bands, shall be the common property and home of all the Indians, party to this treaty. ARTICLE 4. In consideration of the foregoing cession, the United States, engage to pay to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Superior, annually, for twentyfive years, twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) dollars, in specie, ten thousand five hundred (10,500) dollars in goods, two thousand (2,000) dollars in provisions and tobacco, two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of two blacksmiths shops, (including pay of smiths and assistants, and iron steel &c.) one thousand (1,000) dollars for pay of two farmers, twelve hundred (1,200) for pay of two carpenters, and two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of schools for the Indians party to this treaty; and further the United States engage to pay the sum of five thousand (5,000) dollars as an agricultural fund, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War. And also the sum of seventy-five thousand (75,000) dollars, shall be allowed for the full satisfaction of their debts within the ceded district, which shall be examined by the commissioner to this treaty, and the amount to be allowed decided upon by him, which shall appear in a schedule hereunto annexed. The United States shall pay the amount so allowed within three years.

ousy and discontent, it is agreed that all the annuity due by the said treaty, as also the annuity due by the present treaty, shall henceforth be equally divided among the Chippewas of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, party to this treaty, so that every person shall receive an equal share. ARTICLE 6. The Indians residing on the Mineral district, shall be subject to removal therefrom at the pleasure of the President of the United States. ARTICLE 7. This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting parties when ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof the said Robert Stuart commissioner, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, have hereunto set their hands, at La Pointe of Lake Superior, Wisconsin Territory this fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two.

Whereas the Indians have expressed a strong desire to have some provision made for their half breed relatives, therefore it is agreed, that fifteen thousand (15,000) dollars shall be paid to said Indians, next year, as a present, to be disposed of, as they, together with their agent, shall determine in council. ARTICLE 5. Whereas the whole country between Lake Superior and the Mississippi, has always been understood as belonging in common to the Chippewas, party to this treaty; and whereas the bands bordering on Lake Superior, have not been allowed to participate in the annuity payments of the treaty made with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, at St. Peters July 29th 1837, and whereas all the unceded lands belonging to the aforesaid Indians, are hereafter to be held in common, therefore, to remove all occasion for jeal-

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Robert Stuart, Commissioner. Jno. Hulbert, Secretary. Po go ne gi shik, Son go com ick, Ka non do ur uin zo, Na tum e gaw bon, Ua bo jig, Pay pe si gon de bay, Kui ui sen shis, Ott taw wance, Bai ie jig, Show ne aw, Ki uen zi, Wi aw bis ke kut te way, A pish ka go gi, May tock cus e quay, She maw gon e, Ki ji ua be she shi, Ke kon o tum, Shin goob, Na gan nab, Mong o zet, Gitchi waisky, Mi zi, Ta qua gone e, O kon di kan,

1-800-368-6868

Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850

WAGABOU, MICHEL SHELAGESHICK, MANITSHAINSE, and CHIGINANS, principal men of the OJIBEWA Indians inhabiting the Northern Shore of Lake Superior, in the said Province of Canada, from Batchewana Bay to Pigeon River, at the western extremity of said Lake, and inland throughout that extent to the height of land which separates the territory covered by the charter of the Honorable the Hudson’s Bay Company from the said tract, and also the Islands in the said Lake within the boundaries of the British possessions therein, of the other part, witnesseth:

Kis ke taw wac, Pe na shi, Guck we san sish, Ka she osh e, Medge waw gwaw wot, Ne qua ne be, Ua shash ko kum, No din, Be zhi ki, Ka bi na be, Ai aw bens, Sha go bi, Ua be she shi, Que way zhan sis, Ne na nang eb, Be bo kon uen, Ki uen zi.

THAT for and in consideration of the sum of two thousand pounds of good and lawful money of Upper Canada, to them in hand paid, and for the further perpetual annuity of five hundred pounds, the same to be paid and delivered to the said Chiefs and their Tribes at a convenient season of each summer, not later than the first day of August at the Honorable the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Posts of Michipicoton and Fort William, they the said chiefs and principal men do freely, fully and voluntarily surrender, cede, grant and convey unto Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors forever, all their right, title and interest in the whole of the territory above described, save and except the reservations set forth in the schedule hereunto annexed, which reservations shall be held and occupied by the said Chiefs and their Tribes in common, for the purpose of residence and cultivation, and should the said Chiefs and their respective Tribes at any time desire to dispose of any mineral or other valuable productions upon the said reservations, the same will be at their request sold by order of the Superintendent General of the Indian Department for the time being, for their sole use and benefit, and to the best advantage.

In presence of— Henry Blanchford, interpreter. Samuel Ashmun, interpreter. Justin Rice. Charles H. Oakes. William A. Aitkin. William Brewster. Charles M. Borup. Z. Platt. C. H. Beaulieau. L. T. Jamison. James P. Scott. Cyrus Mendenhall. L. M. Warren.

Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850 Made in the Year 1850 With the Ojibewa Indians of Lake Superior conveying Certain Lands to the Crown THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the seventh day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty, at Sault Ste. Marie, in the Province of Canada, between the Honorable WILLIAM BENJAMIN ROBINSON, of the one part, on behalf of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, and JOSEPH PEANDECHAT, JOHN IUINWAY, MISHE-MUCKQUA, TOTOMENCIE, Chiefs, and JACOB WARPELA, AHMUTCHI-

www.abc-clio.com

495

And the said William Benjamin Robinson of the first part, on behalf of Her Majesty and the Government of this Province, hereby promises and agrees to make the payments as before mentioned; and further to allow the said chiefs and their tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over the territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing, saving and excepting only such portions of the said territory as may from time to time be sold or leased to individuals, or companies of individuals, and occupied by them with the consent of the Provincial Government. The parties of the second part further

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

496

Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850

promise and agree that they will not sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any portion of their reservations without the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs being first had and obtained; nor will they at any time hinder or prevent persons from exploring or searching for mineral or other valuable productions in any part of the territory hereby ceded to Her Majesty as before mentioned. The parties of the second part also agree that in case the Government of this Province should before the date of this agreement have sold, or bargained to sell, any mining locations or other property on the portions of the territory hereby reserved for their use and benefit, then and in that case such sale, or promise of sale, shall be forfeited, if the parties interested desire it, by the Government, and the amount accruing therefrom shall be paid to the tribe to whom the reservation belongs. The said William Benjamin Robinson on behalf of Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly with all Her subjects, further promises and agrees that in case the territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second part shall at any future period produce an amount which will enable the Government of this Province without incurring loss to increase the annuity hereby secured to them, then, and in that case, the same shall be augmented from time to time, provided that the amount paid to each individual shall not exceed the sum of one pound provincial currency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order; and provided further that the number of Indians entitled to the benefit of this Treaty shall amount to two thirds of their present numbers (which is twelve hundred and forty) to entitle them to claim the full benefit thereof, and should their numbers at any future period not amount to two thirds of twelve hundred and forty, the annuity shall be diminished in proportion to their actual numbers. Schedule of Reservations made by the above named subscribing Chiefs and principal men. FIRST—Joseph Pean-de-chat and his Tribe, the reserve to commence about two miles from Fort William (inland), on the right bank of the River Kiminitiquia thence westerly six miles, parallel to the shores of the lake; thence northerly five miles; thence easterly to the right bank of the said river, so as not to interfere with any acquired rights of the Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company.

www.abc-clio.com

SECOND—Four miles square at Gros Cap, being a valley near the Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company’s post of Michipicoton, for Totominai and Tribe. THIRD—Four miles square on Gull River, near Lake Nipigon, on both sides of said river, for the Chief Mishimuckqua and Tribe. And should the said Chiefs and their respective Tribes at any time desire to dispose of any part of such reservations, or of any mineral or other valuable productions thereon, the same will be sold or leased at their request by the SuperintendentGeneral of Indian Affairs for the time being, or other officer having authority so to do, for their sole benefit, and to the best advantage. And the said William Benjamin Robinson of the first part, on behalf of Her Majesty and the Government of this Province, hereby promises and agrees to make, or cause to be made, the payments as before mentioned; and further to allow the said Chiefs and their Tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over the Territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof, as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing; saving and excepting such portions of the said Territory as may from time to time be sold or leased to individuals or companies of individuals, and occupied by them with the consent of the Provincial Government. The parties of the second part further promise and agree that they will not sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any portion of their Reservations without the consent of the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, or other officer of like authority, being first had and obtained. Nor will they at any time hinder or prevent persons from exploring or searching for minerals, or other valuable productions, in any part of the Territory hereby ceded to Her Majesty, as before mentioned. The parties of the second part also agree, that in case the Government of this Province should before the date of this agreement have sold, or bargained to sell, any mining locations, or other property, on the portions of the Territory hereby reserved for their use; then and in that case such sale, or promise of sale, shall be perfected by the Government, if the parties claiming it shall have fulfilled all the conditions upon which such locations were made, and the amount accruing therefrom shall be paid to the Tribe to whom the Reservation belongs.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850

The said William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly with all her subjects, further promises and agrees, that should the Territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second part at any future period produce such an amount as will enable the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them, then and in that case the same shall be augmented from time to time, provided that the amount paid to each individual shall not exceed the sum of one pound Provincial Currency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order; and provided further that the number of Indians entitled to the benefit of this treaty shall amount to two-thirds of their present number, which is fourteen hundred and twenty-two, to entitle them to claim the full benefit thereof. And should they not at any future period amount to two-thirds of fourteen hundred and twenty-two, then the said annuity shall be diminished in proportion to their actual numbers. The said William Benjamin Robinson of the first part further agrees, on the part of Her Majesty and the Government of this Province, that in consequence of the Indians inhabiting French River and Lake Nipissing having become parties to this treaty, the further sum of one hundred and sixty pounds Provincial Currency shall be paid in addition to the two thousand pounds above mentioned. Schedule of Reservations made by the abovenamed subscribing Chiefs and Principal Men. FIRST—Pamequonaishcung and his Band, a tract of land to commence seven miles, from the mouth of the River Maganetawang, and extending six miles east and west by three miles north. SECOND—Wagemake and his Band, a tract of land to commence at a place called Nekickshegeshing, six miles from east to west, by three miles in depth. THIRD—Kitcheposkissegan (by Papasainse), from Point Grondine westward, six miles inland, by two miles in front, so as to include the small Lake Nessinassung a tract for themselves and their Bands. FOURTH—Wabakekik, three miles front, near Shebawenaning, by five miles inland, for himself and Band.

www.abc-clio.com

497

FIFTH—Namassin and Naoquagabo and their Bands, a tract of land commencing near Qacloche, at the Hudson Bay Company’s boundary; thence westerly to the mouth of Spanish River; then four miles up the south bank of said river, and across to the place of beginning. SIXTH—Shawenakishick and his Band, a tract of land now occupied by them, and contained between two rivers, called Whitefish River, and Wanabitaseke, seven miles inland. SEVENTH—Windawtegawinini and his Band, the Peninsula east of Serpent River, and formed by it, now occupied by them. EIGHTH—Ponekeosh and his Band, the land contained between the River Mississaga and the River Penebewabecong, up to the first rapids. NINTH—Dokis and his Band, three miles square at Wanabeyakokaun, near Lake Nipissing and the island near the Fall of Okickandawt. TENTH—Shabokishick and his Band, from their present planting grounds on Lake Nipissing to the Hudson Bay Company’s post, six miles in depth. ELEVENTH—Tagawinini and his Band, two miles square at Wanabitibing, a place about forty miles inland, near Lake Nipissing. TWELFTH—Keokouse and his Band, four miles front from Thessalon River eastward, by four miles inland. THIRTEENTH—Mishequanga and his Band, two miles on the lake shore east and west of Ogawaminang, by one mile inland. FOURTEENTH—For Shinguacouse and his Band, a tract of land extending from Maskinongé Bay, inclusive, to Partridge Point, above Garden River on the front, and inland ten miles, throughout the whole distance; and also Squirrel Island. FIFTEENTH—For Nebenaigoching and his Band, a tract of land extending from Wanabekineyunnung west of Gros Cap to the boundary of the lands ceded by the Chiefs of Lake Superior, and inland

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

498

Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851

ten miles throughout the whole distance, including Batche wanaung Bay; and also the small island at Sault Ste. Marie used by them as a fishing station. SIXTEENTH—For Chief Mekis and his Band, residing at Wasaquesing (Sandy Island), a tract of land at a place on the main shore opposite the Island; being the place now occupied by them for residence and cultivation, four miles square. SEVENTEENTH—For Chief Muckatamishaquet and his Band, a tract of land on the east side of the River Naishconteong, near Pointe aux Barils, three miles square; and also a small tract in Washauwenega Bay — now occupied by a part of the Band — three miles square.

Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Fort Laramie, in the Indian Territory, between D. D. Mitchell, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian agent, commissioners specially appointed and authorized by the President of the United States, of the first part, and the chiefs, headmen, and braves of the following Indian nations, residing south of the Missouri River, east of the Rocky Mountains, and north of the lines of Texas and New Mexico, viz, the Sioux or Dahcotahs, Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, Crows. Assinaboines, GrosVentre Mandans, and Arrickaras, parties of the second part, on the seventeenth day of September, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one. ARTICLE 1. The aforesaid nations, parties to this treaty, having assembled for the purpose of establishing and confirming peaceful relations amongst themselves, do hereby covenant and agree to abstain in future from all hostilities whatever against each other, to maintain good faith and friendship in all their mutual intercourse, and to make an effective and lasting peace. ARTICLE 2. The aforesaid nations do hereby recognize the right of the United States Government to establish roads, military and other posts, within their respective territories.

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the rights and privileges acknowledged in the preceding article, the United States bind themselves to protect the aforesaid Indian nations against the commission of all depredations by the people of the said United States, after the ratification of this treaty. ARTICLE 4. The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby agree and bind themselves to make restitution or satisfaction for any wrongs committed, after the ratification of this treaty, by any band or individual of their people, on the people of the United States, whilst lawfully residing in or passing through their respective territories. ARTICLE 5. The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby recognize and acknowledge the following tracts of country, included within the metes and boundaries hereinafter designated, as their respective territories, viz: The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, commencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on the Missouri River: thence in a southwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River: thence up the north fork of the Platte River to a point known as the Red Bute, or where the road leaves the river; thence along the range of mountains known as the Black Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence down Heart River to its mouth; and thence down the Missouri River to the place of beginning. The territory of the Gros Ventre, Mandans, and Arrickaras Nations, commencing at the mouth of Heart River; thence up the Missouri River to the mouth of the Yellowstone River; thence up the Yellowstone River to the mouth of Powder River in a southeasterly direction, to the head-waters of the Little Missouri River; thence along the Black Hills to the head of Heart River, and thence down Heart River to the place of beginning. The territory of the Assinaboin Nation, commencing at the mouth of Yellowstone River; thence up the Missouri River to the mouth of the Muscle-shell River; thence from the mouth of the Muscle-shell River in a southeasterly direction until it strikes the head-waters of Big Dry Creek; thence down that creek to where it empties into the Yellowstone River,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851

nearly opposite the mouth of Powder River, and thence down the Yellowstone River to the place of beginning. This treaty as signed was ratified by the Senate with an amendment changing the annuity in Article 7 from fifty to ten years, subject to acceptance by the tribes. Assent of all tribes except the Crows was procured (see Upper Platte C., 570, 1853, Indian Office) and in subsequent agreements this treaty has been recognized as in force (see post p. 776). The territory of the Blackfoot Nation, commencing at the mouth of Muscle-shell River; thence up the Missouri River to its source; thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains, in a southerly direction, to the head-waters of the northern source of the Yellowstone River; thence down the Yellowstone River to the mouth of Twenty-five Yard Creek; thence across to the head-waters of the Muscle-shell River, and thence down the Muscle-shell River to the place of beginning. The territory of the Crow Nation, commencing at the mouth of Powder River on the Yellowstone; thence up Powder River to its source; thence along the main range of the Black Hills and Wind River Mountains to the head-waters of the Yellowstone River; thence down the Yellowstone River to the mouth of Twentyfive Yard Creek; thence to the head waters of the Muscle-shell River; thence down the Muscle-shell River to its mouth; thence to the head-waters of Big Dry Creek, and thence to its mouth. The territory of the Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, commencing at the Red Bute, or the place where the road leaves the north fork of the Platte River; thence up the north fork of the Platte River to its source; thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains to the head-waters of the Arkansas River; thence down the Arkansas River to the crossing of the Santa Fé road; thence in a northwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River, and thence up the Platte River to the place of beginning. It is, however, understood that, in making this recognition and acknowledgement, the aforesaid Indian nations do not hereby abandon or prejudice any rights or claims they may have to other lands; and further, that they do not surrender the privilege of

www.abc-clio.com

499

hunting, fishing, or passing over any of the tracts of country heretofore described. ARTICLE 6. The parties to the second part of this treaty having selected principals or head-chiefs for their respective nations, through whom all national business will hereafter be conducted, do hereby bind themselves to sustain said chiefs and their successors during good behavior. ARTICLE 7. In consideration of the treaty stipulations, and for the damages which have or may occur by reason thereof to the Indian nations, parties hereto, and for their maintenance and the improvement of their moral and social customs, the United States bind themselves to deliver to the said Indian nations the sum of fifty thousand dollars per annum for the term of ten years, with the right to continue the same at the discretion of the President of the United States for a period not exceeding five years thereafter, in provisions, merchandise, domestic animals, and agricultural implements, in such proportions as may be deemed best adapted to their condition by the President of the United States, to be distributed in proportion to the population of the aforesaid Indian nations. ARTICLE 8. It is understood and agreed that should any of the Indian nations, parties to this treaty, violate any of the provisions thereof, the United States may withhold the whole or a portion of the annuities mentioned in the preceding article from the nation so offending, until, in the opinion of the President of the United States, proper satisfaction shall have been made. In testimony whereof the said D. D. Mitchell and Thomas Fitzpatrick commissioners as aforesaid, and the chiefs, headmen, and braves, parties hereto, have set their hands and affixed their marks, on the day and at the place first above written. D. D. Mitchell Thomas Fitzpatrick. Commissioners. Sioux: Mah-toe-wha-you-whey, his x mark.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

500

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853

Mah-kah-toe-zah-zah, his x mark. Bel-o-ton-kah-tan-ga, his x mark. Nah-ka-pah-gi-gi, his x mark. Mak-toe-sah-bi-chis, his x mark. Meh-wha-tah-ni-hans-kah, his x mark.

July 27, 1853. | 10 Stats., 1013. | Ratified Apr. 12, 1854. | Proclaimed Feb. 12, 1855 [4]. Articles of a treaty, made and concluded at Fort Atkinson, in the Indian Territory, of the United States of America, on the 27th day of July, anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-three, between the United States of America, by Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian agent, and sole commissioner, duly appointed for that purpose, and the Camanche, and Kiowa, and Apache tribes or nations of Indians, inhabiting the said territory south of the Arkansas River.

Cheyennes: Wah-ha-nis-satta, his x mark. Voist-ti-toe-vetz, his x mark. Nahk-ko-me-ien, his x mark. Koh-kah-y-wh-cum-est, his x mark. Arrapahoes: Bè-ah-té-a-qui-sah, his x mark. Neb-ni-bah-seh-it, his x mark. Beh-kah-jay-beth-sah-es, his x mark.

ARTICLE 1. Peace, friendship, and amity shall hereafter exist between the United States and the Camanche and Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians, parties to this treaty, and the same shall be perpetual.

Crows: Arra-tu-ri-sash, his x mark. Doh-chepit-seh-chi-es, his x mark. Assinaboines: Mah-toe-wit-ko, his x mark. Toe-tah-ki-eh-nan, his x mark.

ARTICLE 2. The Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians do hereby jointly and severally covenant that peaceful relations shall likewise be maintained amongst themselves in future; and that they will abstain from all hostilities whatsoever against each other, and cultivate mutual good-will and friendship.

Mandans and Gros Ventres: Nochk-pit-shi-toe-pish, his x mark. She-oh-mant-ho, his x mark. Arickarees: Koun-hei-ti-shan, his x mark. Bi-atch-tah-wetch, his x mark. In the presence of— A. B. Chambers, secretary. S. Cooper, colonel, U. S. Army. R. H. Chilton, captain, First Drags. Thomas Duncan, captain, Mounted Riflemen. Thos. G. Rhett, brevet captain R. M. R. W. L. Elliott, first lieutenant R. M. R. C. Campbell, interpreter for Sioux. John S. Smith, interpreter for Cheyennes. Robert Meldrum, interpreter for the Crows. H. Culbertson, interpreter for Assiniboines and Gros Ventres. Francois L’Etalie, interpreter for Arick arees. John Pizelle, interpreter for the Arrapahoes. B. Gratz Brown. Robert Campbell. Edmond F. Chouteau.

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 3. The aforesaid Indian tribes do also hereby fully recognize and acknowledge the right of the United States to lay off and mark out roads or highways—to make reservations of land necessary thereto—to locate depots—and to establish military and other posts within the territories inhabited by the said tribes; and also to prescribe and enforce, in such manner as the President or the Congress of the United States shall from time to time direct, rules and regulations to protect the rights of persons and property among the said Indian tribes. ARTICLE 4. The Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes, parties as before recited, do further agree and bind themselves to make restitution or satisfaction for any injuries done by any band or any individuals of their respective tribes to the people of the United States who may be lawfully residing in or passing through their said territories; and to abstain hereafter from levying

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853

contributions from, or molesting them in any manner; and, so far as may be in their power, to render assistance to such as need relief, and to facilitate their safe passage. ARTICLE 5. The Camanche, and Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians, parties to this treaty, do hereby solemnly covenant and agree to refrain in future from warlike incursions into the Mexican provinces, and from all depredations upon the inhabitants thereof; and they do likewise bind themselves to restore all captives that may hereafter be taken by any of the bands, war-parties, or individuals of the said several tribes, from the Mexican provinces aforesaid, and to make proper and just compensation for any wrongs that may be inflicted upon the people thereof by them, either to the United States or to the Republic of Mexico, as the President of the United States may direct and require. ARTICLE 6. In consideration of the foregoing agreements on the part of the Camanche, and Kiowa, and Apache tribes, parties to this treaty—of the losses which they may sustain by reason of the travel of the people of the United States through their territories—and for the better support, and the improvement of the social condition of the said tribes—the United States do bind themseles, and by these presents stipulate to deliver to the Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes aforesaid, the sum of eighteen thousand dollars per annum, for and during the term of ten years next ensuing from this date, and for the additional term of five years, if, in the opinion of the President of the United States, such extension shall be advisable;— the same to be given to them in goods, merchandise, provisions, or agricultural implements, or in such shape as may be best adapted to their wants, and as the President of the United States may designate, and to be distributed amongst the said several tribes in proportion to the respective numbers of each tribe. ARTICLE 7. The United States do moreover bind themselves, in consideration of the covenants contained in the preceding articles of this treaty, to protect and defend the Indian tribes, parties hereto, against the committal of any depredations upon them, and in their territories, by the people of the United States, for and

www.abc-clio.com

501

during the term for which this treaty shall be in force, and to compensate them for any injuries that may result therefrom. ARTICLE 8. It is also stipulated and provided, by and between the parties to this treaty, that should any of the Indian tribes aforesaid violate any of the conditions, provisions, or agreements herein contained, or fail to perform any of the obligations entered into on their part, then the United States may withhold the whole or a part of the annuities mentioned in the sixth article of this treaty, from the tribe so offending, until, in the opinion of the President or the Congress of the United States, proper satisfaction shall have been made, or until persons amongst the said Indians offending against the laws of the United States shall have been delivered up to justice. ARTICLE 9. It is also consented to and determined between the parties hereto, that the annuities to be given on the part of the United States, as provided in the sixth article of this treaty, shall be delivered to the said Indian tribes collectively, at or in the vicinity of Beaver Creek, yearly, during the month of July in each year, until some other time and place shall have been designated by the President of the United States, in which event the said Indian tribes shall have due notice thereof, and the place of distribution which may be selected shall always be some point within the territories occupied by the said tribes. ARTICLE 10. It is agreed between the United States and the Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians, that, should it at any time hereafter be considered by the United States as a proper policy to establish farms among and for the benefit of said Indians, it shall be discretionary with the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to change the annuities herein provided for, or any part thereof, into a fund for that purpose. In witness whereof, the said Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian Agent, and sole commissioner on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the Camanche and Kiowa, and Apache tribes or nations, have hereunto set their hands, at Fort Atkinson, in the Indian Territory of the United

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

502

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854

States, this twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. eighteen hundred and fifty-three. Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian Agent, and Commissioner on behalf of the United States. B. Gratz Brown, Secretary. R. H. Chilton. B. T. Moylero. Wulea-boo, his x mark (Shaved Head) chief Camanche Wa-ya-ba-tos-a, his x mark (White Eagle) chief of band Hai-nick-seu, his x mark (The Crow) chief of band Paro-sa-wa-no, his x mark (Ten Sticks) chief of band Wa-ra-kon-alta, his x mark (Poor Cayote Wolf) chief of band Ka-na-re-tah, his x mark (One that Rides the Clouds) chief of the southern Camanches To-hau-sen, his x mark (Little Mountain) chief Kiowas Si-tank-ki, his x mark (Sitting Bear) war chief Tah-ka-eh-bool, his x mark (The Bad Smelling Saddle) headman Che-koon-ki, his x mark (Black Horse) headman On-ti-an-te, his x mark (The Snow Flake) headman El-bo-in-ki, his x mark (Yellow Hair) headman Si-tah-le, his x mark (Poor Wolf) chief Apache Oh-ah-te-kah, his x mark (Poor Bear) headman Ah-zaah, his x mark (Prairie Wolf) headman Kootz-zah, his x mark (The Cigar) headman Witness: B. B. Dayton, Geo. M. Alexander, T. Polk, Geo. Collier, jr. We do hereby accept and consent to the Senate amendments to the treaty aforesaid, and agree that the same may be considered as a part thereof. In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1854. Camanches: To-che-ra-nah-boo, (Shaved Head,) his x mark. Wa-ya-ba-to-sa, (White Eagle,) his x mark.

www.abc-clio.com

Hai-nick-seu, (Crow,) his x mark. Ty-har-re-ty, (One who runs after women,) his x mark. Para-sar-a-man-no, (Ten Bears,) his x mark. Kiowas: To-han-seu, (Little Mountain,) his x mark. Ti-sank-ki, (Sitting Bear,) his x mark. Ko-a-ty-ka, (Wolf outside,) his x mark. Executed in presence of— Aquilla T. Ridgely, assistant surgeon, U. S. Army. A. H. Plummer, brevet second lieutenant, Sixth Infantry. Paul Carrey. John Kinney, United States interpreter. H. E. Nixon, clerk. I certify that the foregoing amendments to the treaty of 27th day of July, 1853, was read and explained to the chiefs, and that they consented to, and signed the same on the 21st day of July, 1854. J. W. Whitfield, Indian Agent.

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 Sept. 30, 1854. | 10 Stats., 1109. | Ratified Jan. 10, 1855. | Proclaimed Jan. 29, 1855. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe, in the State of Wisconsin, between Henry C. Gilbert and David B. Herriman, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and the Mississippi, by their chiefs and head-men. ARTICLE 1. The Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby cede to the United States all the lands heretofore owned by them in common with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, lying east of the following boundary-line, to wit: Beginning at a point, where the east branch of Snake River crosses the southern boundary-line of the Chippewa country, running thence up the said branch to its source, thence nearly north, in a straight line, to the mouth of East Savannah River, thence up the St. Louis River to the mouth of East Swan River, thence up the East Swan River to its source, thence in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854

a straight line to the most westerly bend of Vermillion River, and thence down the Vermillion River to its mouth. The Chippewas of the Mississippi hereby assent and agree to the foregoing cession, and consent that the whole amount of the consideration money for the country ceded above, shall be paid to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, and in consideration thereof the Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby relinquish to the Chippewas of the Mississippi, all their interest in and claim to the lands heretofore owned by them in common, lying west of the above boundry-line. ARTICLE 2. The United States agree to set apart and withhold from sale, for the use of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, the following-described tracts of land, viz: 1st. For the L’Anse and Vieux De Sert bands, all the unsold lands in the following townships in the State of Michigan: Township fifty-one north range thirtythree west; township fifty-one north range thirtytwo west; the east half of township fifty north range thirty-three west; the west half of township fifty north range thirty-two west, and all of township fifty-one north range thirty-one west, lying west of Huron Bay. 2d. For the La Pointe band, and such other Indians as may see fit to settle with them, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning on the south shore of Lake Superior, a few miles west of Montreal River, at the mouth of a creek called by the Indians Ke-che-sebe-we-she, running thence south to a line drawn east and west through the centre of township forty-seven north, thence west to the west line of said township, thence south to the southeast corner of township forty-six north, range thirty-two west, thence west the width of two townships, thence north the width of two townships, thence west one mile, thence north to the lake shore, and thence along the lake shore, crossing Shag-waw-me-quon Point, to the place of beginning. Also two hundred acres on the northern extremity of Madeline Island, for a fishing ground. 3d. For the other Wisconsin bands, a tract of land lying about Lac De Flambeau, and another tract on Lac Court Orielles, each equal in extent to three townships, the boundaries of which shall be here-

www.abc-clio.com

503

after agreed upon or fixed under the direction of the President. 4th. For the Fond Du Lac bands, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning at an island in the St. Louis River, above Knife Portage, called by the Indians Paw-paw-sco-me-me-tig, running thence west to the boundary-line heretofore described, thence north along said boundary-line to the mouth of Savannah River, thence down the St. Louis River to the place of beginning. And if said tract shall contain less than one hundred thousand acres, a strip of land shall be added on the south side thereof, large enough to equal such deficiency. 5th. For the Grand Portage band, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning at a rock a little east of the eastern extremity of Grand Portage Bay, running thence along the lake shore to the mouth of a small stream called by the Indians Maw-ske-gwawcaw-maw-se-be, or Cranberry Marsh River, thence up said stream, across the point to Pigeon River, thence down Pigeon River to a point opposite the starting-point, and thence across to the place of beginning. 6th. The Ontonagon band and that subdivision of the La Pointe band of which Buffalo is chief, may each select, on or near the lake shore, four sections of land, under the direction of the President, the boundaries of which shall be defined hereafter. And being desirous to provide for some of his connections who have rendered his people important services, it is agreed that the chief Buffalo may select one section of land, at such place in the ceded territory as he may see fit, which shall be reserved for that purpose, and conveyed by the United States to such person or persons as he may direct. 7th. Each head of a family, or single person over twenty-one years of age at the present time of the mixed bloods, belonging to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, shall be entitled to eighty acres of land, to be selected by them under the direction of the President, and which shall be secured to them by patent in the usual form. ARTICLE 3. The United States will define the boundaries of the reserved tracts, whenever it may be necessary, by actual survey, and the President may, from time to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

504

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854

time, at his discretion, cause the whole to be surveyed, and may assign to each head of a family or single person over twenty-one years of age, eighty acres of land for his or their separate use; and he may, at his discretion, as fast as the occupants become capable of transacting their own affairs, issue patents therefor to such occupants, with such restrictions of the power of alienation as he may see fit to impose. And he may also, at his discretion, make rules and regulations, respecting the disposition of the lands in case of the death of the head of a family, or single person occupying the same, or in case of its abandonment by them. And he may also assign other lands in exchange for mineral lands, if any such are found in the tracts herein set apart. And he may also make such changes in the boundaries of such reserved tracts or otherwise, as shall be necessary to prevent interference with any vested rights. All necessary roads, highways, and railroads, the lines of which may run through any of the reserved tracts, shall have the right of way through the same, compensation being made therefor as in other cases.

ARTICLE 5. The United States will also furnish a blacksmith and assistant, with the usual amount of stock, during the continuance of the annuity payments, and as much longer as the President may think proper, at each of the points herein set apart for the residence of the Indians, the same to be in lieu of all the employees to which the Chippewas of Lake Superior may be entitled under previous existing treaties.

ARTICLE 4. In consideration of and payment for the country hereby ceded, the United States agree to pay to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, annually, for the term of twenty years, the following sums, to wit: five thousand dollars in coin; eight thousand dollars in goods, household furniture and cooking utensils; three thousand dollars in agricultural implements and cattle, carpenter’s and other tools and building materials, and three thousand dollars for moral and educational purposes, of which last sum, three hundred dollars per annum shall be paid to the Grand Portage band, to enable them to maintain a school at their village. The United States will also pay the further sum of ninety thousand dollars, as the chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to meet their present just engagements. Also the further sum of six thousand dollars, in agricultural implements, household furniture, and cooking utensils, to be distributed at the next annuity payment, among the mixed bloods of said nation. The United States will also furnish two hundred guns, one hundred rifles, five hundred beaver-traps, three hundred dollars’ worth of ammunition, and one thousand dollars’ worth of ready-made clothing, to be distributed among the young men of the nation, at the next annuity payment.

ARTICLE 8. It is agreed, between the Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Chippewas of the Mississippi, that the former shall be entitled to two-thirds, and the latter to one-third, of all benefits to be derived from former treaties existing prior to the year 1847.

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 6. The annuities of the Indians shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals, but satisfaction for depredations committed by them shall be made by them in such manner as the President may direct. ARTICLE 7. No spirituous liquors shall be made, sold, or used on any of the lands herein set apart for the residence of the Indians, and the sale of the same shall be prohibited in the Territory hereby ceded, until otherwise ordered by the President.

ARTICLE 9. The United States agree that an examination shall be made, and all sums that may be found equitably due to the Indians, for arrearages of annuity or other thing, under the provisions of former treaties, shall be paid as the chiefs may direct. ARTICLE 10. All missionaries, and teachers, and other persons of full age, residing in the territory hereby ceded, or upon any of the reservations hereby made by authority of law, shall be allowed to enter the land occupied by them at the minimum price whenever the surveys shall be completed to the amount of one quarter-section each. ARTICLE 11. All annuity payments to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, shall hereafter be made at L’Anse, La Pointe, Grand Portage, and on the St. Louis River;

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854

and the Indians shall not be required to remove from the homes hereby set apart for them. And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the President. ARTICLE 12. In consideration of the poverty of the Bois Forte Indians who are parties to this treaty, they having never received any annuity payments, and of the great extent of that part of the ceded country owned exclusively by them, the following additional stipulations are made for their benefit. The United States will pay the sum of ten thousand dollars, as their chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to meet their present just engagements. Also the further sum of ten thousand dollars, in five equal annual payments, in blankets, cloth, nets, guns, ammunitions, and such other articles of necessity as they may require. They shall have the right to select their reservation at any time hereafter, under the direction of the President; and the same may be equal in extent, in proportion to their numbers, to those allowed the other bands, and be subject to the same provisions. They shall be allowed a blacksmith, and the usual smithshop supplies, and also two persons to instruct them in farming, whenever in the opinion of the President it shall be proper, and for such length of time as he shall direct. It is understood that all Indians who are parties to this treaty, except the Chippewas of the Mississippi, shall hereafter be known as the Chippewas of Lake Superior. Provided, That the stipulation by which the Chippewas of Lake Superior relinquishing their right to land west of the boundary-line shall not apply to the Bois Forte band who are parties to this treaty. ARTICLE 13. This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof, the said Henry C. Gilbert, and the said David B. Herriman, commissioners as aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Mississippi, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place

www.abc-clio.com

505

aforesaid, this thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four. Henry C. Gilbert, David B. Herriman, Commissioners. Richard M. Smith, Secretary. La Pointe Band: Ke-che-waish-ke, or the Buffalo, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Chay-che-que-oh, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], A-daw-we-ge-zhick, or Each Side of the Sky, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], O-ske-naw-way, or the Youth, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Maw-caw-day-pe-nay-se, or the Black Bird, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-waw-naw-quot, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-wain-zeence, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Waw-baw-ne-me-ke, or the White Thunder, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Pay-baw-me-say, or the Soarer, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-waw-ge-waw-nose, or the Little Current, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Maw-caw-day-waw-quot, or the Black Cloud, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Me-she-naw-way, or the Disciple, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Key-me-waw-naw-um, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], She-gog headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Ontonagon Band: O-cun-de-cun, or the Buoy 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Waw-say-ge-zhick, or the Clear Sky, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Keesh-ke-taw-wug, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. L’Anse Band: David King, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], John Southwind, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Peter Marksman, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-taw-me-ge-zhick, or the First Sky, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Aw-se-neece, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Vieux De Sert Band: May-dway-aw-she, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

506

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854

Posh-quay-gin, or the Leather, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.]. Grand Portage Band: Shaw-gaw-naw-sheence, or the Little Englishman, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], May-mosh-caw-wosh, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Aw-de-konse, or the Little Reindeer, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Way-we-ge-wam, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Fond Du Lac Band: Shing-goope, or the Balsom, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Mawn-go-sit, or the Loon’s Foot, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], May-quaw-me-we-ge-zhick, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Keesh-kawk, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Caw-taw-waw-be-day, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], O-saw-gee, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-che-aw-ke-wain-ze, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-gaw-nub, or the Foremost Sitter, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ain-ne-maw-sung, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-aw-bun-way, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Wain-ge-maw-tub, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Aw-ke-wain-zeence, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Shay-way-be-nay-se, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Paw-pe-oh, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Lac Court Oreille Band: Aw-ke-wain-ze, or the Old Man, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Key-no-zhance, or the Little Jack Fish, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Key-che-pe-nay-se, or the Big Bird, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-che-waw-be-shay-she, or the Big Martin, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Waw-be-shay-sheence, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Quay-quay-cub, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Shaw-waw-no-me-tay, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Nay-naw-ong-gay-be, or the Dressing Bird, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

O-zhaw-waw-sco-ge-zhick, or the Blue Sky, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], I-yaw-banse, or the Little Buck, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-che-e-nin-ne, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Haw-daw-gaw-me, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Way-me-te-go-she, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Pay-me-ge-wung, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Lac Du Flambeau Band: Aw-mo-se, or the Wasp, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-nish-te-no, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Me-gee-see, or the Eagle, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Kay-kay-co-gwaw-nay-aw-she, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], O-che-chog, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Nay-she-kay-gwaw-nay-be, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], O-scaw-bay-wis, or the Waiter, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Que-we-zance, or the White Fish, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ne-gig, or the Otter, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Nay-waw-che-ge-ghick-may-be, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Quay-quay-ke-cah, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Bois Forte Band: Kay-baish-caw-daw-way, or Clear Round the Prairie, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Way-zaw-we-ge-zhick-way-sking, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], O-saw-we-pe-nay-she, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. The Mississippi Bands: Que-we-san-se, or Hole in the Day, head chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Caw-nawn-daw-waw-win-zo, or the Berry Hunter, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Waw-bow-jieg, or the White Fisher, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ot-taw-waw, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Que-we-zhan-cis, or the Bad Boy, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Bye-a-jick, or the Lone Man, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], I-yaw-shaw-way-ge-zhick, or the Crossing Sky, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Maw-caw-day, or the Bear’s Heart, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-way-de-no-go-nay-be, or the Northern Feather, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Me-squaw-dace, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Naw-gaw-ne-gaw-bo, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Wawm-be-de-yea, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Waish-key, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Caw-way-caw-me-ge-skung, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], My-yaw-ge-way-we-dunk, or the One who carries the Voice, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.]. John F. Godfroy, Interpreters. Geo. Johnston, Interpreters. S. A. Marvin, Interpreters. Louis Codot, Interpreters. Paul H. Beaulieu, Interpreters. Henry Blatchford, Interpreters. Peter Floy, Interpreters. Executed in the presence of— Henry M. Rice, J. W. Lynde, G. D. Williams, B. H. Connor, E. W. Muldough, Richard Godfroy, D. S. Cash, H. H. McCullough, E. Smith Lee, Wm. E. Vantassel, L. H. Wheeler.

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854 Dec. 26, 1854. | 10 Stat., 1132. | Ratified Mar. 3, 1855. | Proclaimed Apr. 10, 1855. Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded on the She-nah-nam, or Medicine Creek, in the Territory of Washington, this twenty-sixth day of December, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs of the said Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men, and delegates of the Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawskin, S’Homamish,

www.abc-clio.com

507

Stehchass, T’ Peek-sin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish tribes and bands of Indians, occupying the lands lying round the head of Puget’s Sound and the adjacent inlets, who, for the purpose of this treaty, are to be regarded as one nation, on behalf of said tribes and bands, and duly authorized by them. ARTICLE 1. The said tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States, all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied by them, bounded and described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the point on the eastern side of Admiralty Inlet, known as Point Pully, about midway between Commencement and Elliott Bays; thence running in a southeasterly direction, following the divide between the waters of the Puyallup and Dwamish, or White Rivers, to the summit of the Cascade Mountains; thence southerly, along the summit of said range, to a point opposite the main source of the Skookum Chuck Creek; thence to and down said creek, to the coal mine; thence northwesterly, to the summit of the Black Hills; thence northerly, to the upper forks of the Satsop River; thence northeasterly, through the portage known as Wilkes’s Portage, to Point Southworth, on the western side of Admiralty Inlet; thence around the foot of Vashon’s Island, easterly and southeasterly, to the place of beginning. ARTICLE 2. There is, however, reserved for the present use and occupation of the said tribes and bands, the following tracts of land, viz: The small island called Klahche-min, situated opposite the mouths of Hammersley’s and Totten’s Inlets, and separated from Hartstene Island by Peale’s Passage, containing about two sections of land by estimation; a square tract containing two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, on Puget’s Sound, near the mouth of the She-nah-nam Creek, one mile west of the meridian line of the United States land survey, and a square tract containing two sections, or twelve hundred and eighty acres, lying on the south side of Commencement Bay; all which tracts shall be set apart, and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked out for their exclusive use; nor shall any white man be permitted to reside upon the same without permission of the tribe and the superintendent or agent. And the said tribes and bands agree to remove to and settle upon the same within one year after the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

508

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

ratification of this treaty, or sooner if the means are furnished them. In the mean time, it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any ground not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the United States, and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with the permission of the owner or claimant. If necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through their reserves, and, on the other hand, the right of way with free access from the same to the nearest public highway is secured to them. ARTICLE 3. The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens, and that they shall alter all stallions not intended for breeding-horses, and shall keep up and confine the latter. ARTICLE 4. In consideration of the above session, the United States agree to pay to the said tribes and bands the sum of thirty-two thousand five hundred dollars, in the following manner, that is to say: For the first year after the ratification hereof, three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; for the next two years, three thousand dollars each year; for the next three years, two thousand dollars each year; for the next four years fifteen hundred dollars each year; for the next five years twelve hundred dollars each year; and for the next five years one thousand dollars each year; all which said sums of money shall be applied to the use and benefit of the said Indians, under the direction of the President of the United States, who may from time to time determine, at his discretion, upon what beneficial objects to expend the same. And the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other proper officer, shall each year inform the President of the wishes of said Indians in respect thereto. ARTICLE 5. To enable the said Indians to remove to and settle upon their aforesaid reservations, and to clear, fence, and break up a sufficient quantity of land for cultivation, the United States further agree to pay the sum of three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, to

www.abc-clio.com

be laid out and expended under the direction of the President, and in such manner as he shall approve. ARTICLE 6. The President may hereafter, when in his opinion the interests of the Territory may require, and the welfare of the said Indians be promoted, remove them from either or all of said reservations to such other suitable place or places within said Territory as he may deem fit, on remunerating them for their improvements and the expenses of their removal, or may consolidate them with other friendly tribes or bands. And he may further, at his discretion, cause the whole or any portion of the lands hereby reserved, or of such other land as may be selected in lieu thereof, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the same to such individuals or families as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home, on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable. Any substantial improvements heretofore made by any Indian, and which he shall be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direction of the President, and payment be made accordingly therefor. ARTICLE 7. The annuities of the aforesaid tribes and bands shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals. ARTICLE 8. The aforesaid tribes and bands acknowledge their dependence on the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and pledge themselves to commit no depredations on the property of such citizens. And should any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proved before the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in default thereof, or if injured or destroyed, compensation may be made by the Government out of their annuities. Nor will they make war on any other tribe except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of difference between them and other Indians to the Government of the United States, or its agent, for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit any depredations on any other Indians within the Territory, the same rule shall prevail as that prescribed in this article, in cases of depredations against citizens. And the said tribes agree not

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial. ARTICLE 9. The above tribes and bands are desirous to exclude from their reservations the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same; and therefore it is provided, that any Indian belonging to said tribes, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservations, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her proportion of the annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine. ARTICLE 10. The United States further agree to establish at the general agency for the district of Puget’s Sound, within one year from the ratification hereof, and to support, for a period of twenty years, an agricultural and industrial school, to be free to children of the said tribes and bands, in common with those of the other tribes of said district, and to provide the said school with a suitable instructor or instructors, and also to provide a smithy and carpenter’s shop, and furnish them with the necessary tools, and employ a blacksmith, carpenter, and farmer, for the term of twenty years, to instruct the Indians in their respective occupations. And the United States further agree to employ a physician to reside at the said central agency, who shall furnish medicine and advice to their sick, and shall vaccinate them; the expenses of the said school, shops, employées, and medical attendance, to be defrayed by the United States, and not deducted from the annuities. ARTICLE 11. The said tribes and bands agree to free all slaves now held by them, and not to purchase or acquire others hereafter. ARTICLE 12. The said tribes and bands finally agree not to trade at Vancouver’s Island, or elsewhere out of the dominions of the United States; nor shall foreign Indians be permitted to reside in their reservations without consent of the superintendent or agent. ARTICLE 13. This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States.

www.abc-clio.com

509

In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian Affairs, and the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the aforesaid tribes and bands, have hereunto set their hands and seals at the place and on the day and year hereinbefore written. Isaac I. Stevens, [L. S.], Governor and Superintendent Territory of Washington. Qui-ee-metl, his x mark. [L. S.], Sno-ho-dumset, his x mark. [L. S.], Lesh-high, his x mark. [L. S.], Slip-o-elm, his x mark. [L. S.], Kwi-ats, his x mark. [L. S.], Stee-high, his x mark. [L. S.], Di-a-keh, his x mark. [L. S.], Hi-ten, his x mark. [L. S.], Squa-ta-hun, his x mark. [L. S.], Kahk-tse-min, his x mark. [L. S.], Sonan-o-yutl, his x mark. [L. S.], Kl-tehp, his x mark. [L. S.], Sahl-ko-min, his x mark. [L. S.], T’bet-ste-heh-bit, his x mark. [L. S.], Tcha-hoos-tan, his x mark. [L. S.], Ke-cha-hat, his x mark. [L. S.], Spee-peh, his x mark. [L. S.], Swe-yah-tum, his x mark. [L. S.], Cha-achsh, his x mark. [L. S.], Pich-kehd, his x mark. [L. S.], S’Klah-o-sum, his x mark. [L. S.], Sah-le-tatl, his x mark. [L. S.], See-lup, his x mark. [L. S.], E-la-kah-ka, his x mark. [L. S.], Slug-yeh, his x mark. [L. S.], Hi-nuk, his x mark. [L. S.], Ma-mo-nish, his x mark. [L. S.], Cheels, his x mark. [L. S.], Knutcanu, his x mark. [L. S.], Bats-ta-kobe, his x mark. [L. S.], Win-ne-ya, his x mark. [L. S.], Klo-out, his x mark. [L. S.], Se-uch-ka-nam, his x mark. [L. S.], Ske-mah-han, his x mark. [L. S.], Wuts-un-a-pum, his x mark. [L. S.], Quuts-a-tadm, his x mark. [L. S.], Quut-a-heh-mtsn, his x mark. [L. S.], Yah-leh-chn, his x mark. [L. S.], To-lahl-kut, his x mark. [L. S.], Yul-lout, his x mark. [L. S.], See-ahts-oot-soot, his x mark. [L. S.], Ye-takho, his x mark. [L. S.], We-po-it-ee, his x mark. [L. S.],

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

510

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855

dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned head chiefs, chiefs, head-men, and delegates of the Yakama, Palouse, Pisquouse, Wenatshapam, Klikatat, Klinquit, Kow-was-say-ee, Li-ay-was, Skinpah, Wish-ham. Shyiks, Ochechotes, Kah milt-pah, and Se-ap-cat, confederated tribes and bands of Indians, occupying lands hereinafter bounded and described and lying in Washington Territory, who for the purposes of this treaty are to be considered as one nation, under the name of “Yakama,” with Kamaiakun as its head chief, on behalf of and acting for said tribes and bands, and being duly authorized thereto by them.

Kah-sld, his x mark. [L. S.], La’h-hom-kan, his x mark. [L. S.], Pah-how-at-ish, his x mark. [L. S.], Swe-yehm, his x mark. [L. S.], Sah-hwill, his x mark. [L. S.], Se-kwaht, his x mark. [L. S.], Kah-hum-klt, his x mark. [L. S.], Yah-kwo-bah, his x mark. [L. S.], Wut-sah-le-wun, his x mark. [L. S.], Sah-ba-hat, his x mark. [L. S.], Tel-e-kish, his x mark. [L. S.], Swe-keh-nam, his x mark. [L. S.], Sit-oo-ah, his x mark. [L. S.], Ko-quel-a-cut, his x mark. [L. S.] Jack, his x mark. [L. S.], Keh-kise-bel-lo, his x mark. [L. S.], Go-yeh-hn, his x mark. [L. S.], Sah-putsh, his x mark. [L. S.], William, his x mark. [L. S.]. Executed in the presence of us— M. T. Simmons, Indian agent, James Doty, secretary of the commission, C. H. Mason, secretary Washington Territory, W. A. Slaughter, first lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, James McAlister, E. Giddings, jr., George Shazer, Henry D. Cock, S. S. Ford, jr., John W. McAlister, Clovington Cushman, Peter Anderson, Samuel Klady, W. H. Pullen, P. O. Hough, E. R. Tyerall, George Gibbs, Benj. F. Shaw, interpreter, Hazard Stevens.

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855 June 9, 1855. | 12 Stat., 951. | Ratified Mar. 8, 1859. | Proclaimed Apr. 18, 1859. Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at the treaty-ground, Camp Stevens, WallaWalla Valley, this ninth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, by and between Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superinten-

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 1. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied and claimed by them, and bounded and described as follows, to wit: Commencing at Mount Ranier, thence northerly along the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the point where the northern tributaries of Lake Che-lan and the southern tributaries of the Methow River have their rise; thence southeasterly on the divide between the waters of Lake Che-lan and the Methow River to the Columbia River; thence, crossing the Columbia on a true east course, to a point whose longitude is one hundred and nineteen degrees and ten minutes, (119° 10’) which two latter lines separate the above confederated tribes and bands from the Oakinakane tribe of Indians; thence in a true south course to the forty-seventh (47°) parallel of latitude: thence east on said parallel to the main Palouse River, which two latter lines of boundary separate the above confederated tribes and bands from the Spokanes; thence down the Palouse River to its junction with the Mohhah-ne-she, or southern tributary of the same; thence in a southesterly direction, to the Snake River, at the mouth of the Tucannon River, separating the above confederated tribes from the Nez Percé tribe of Indians; thence down the Snake River to its junction with the Columbia River; thence up the Columbia River to the “White Banks” below the Priest’s Rapids; thence westerly to a lake called “La Lac”; thence southerly to a point on the Yakama River called Toh-mah-luke; thence, in a southwesterly direction, to the Columbia River, at the western extremity of the “Big Island,” between the mouths of the Umatilla River and Butler Creek; all which latter boundaries separate the above confederated tribes and bands from the Walla-Walla,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855

Cayuse, and Umatilla tribes and bands of Indians; thence down the Columbia River to midway between the mouths of White Salmon and Wind Rivers; thence along the divide between said rivers to the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains; and thence along said ridge to the place of beginning. ARTICLE 2. There is, however, reserved, from the lands above ceded for the use and occupation of the aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians, the tract of land included within the following boundaries, to wit: Commencing on the Yakama River, at the mouth of the Attah-nam River; thence westerly along said Attah-nam River to the forks; thence along the southern tributary to the Cascade Mountains; thence southerly along the main ridge of said mountains, passing south and east of Mount Adams, to the spur whence flows the waters of the Klickatat and Pisco Rivers; thence down said spur to the divide between the waters of said rivers; thence along said divide to the divide separating the waters of the Satass River from those flowing into the Columbia River; thence along said divide to the main Yakama, eight miles below the mouth of the Satass River; and thence up the Yakama River to the place of beginning. All which tract shall be set apart and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked out, for the exclusive use and benefit of said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as an Indian reservation; nor shall any white man, excepting those in the employment of the Indian Department, be permitted to reside upon the said reservation without permission of the tribe and the superintendent and agent. And the said confederated tribes and bands agree to remove to, and settle upon, the same, within one year after the ratification of this treaty. In the mean time it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any ground not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the United States; and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with the permission of the owner or claimant. Guaranteeing, however, the right to all citizens of the United States to enter upon and occupy as settlers any lands not actually occupied and cultivated by said Indians at this time, and not included in the reservation above named. And provided, That any substantial improvements heretofore made by any Indian, such as fields

www.abc-clio.com

511

enclosed and cultivated, and houses erected upon the lands hereby ceded, and which he may be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued, under the direction of the President of the United States, and payment made therefor in money; or improvements of an equal value made for said Indian upon the reservation. And no Indian will be required to abandon the improvements aforesaid, now occupied by him, until their value in money, or improvements of an equal value shall be furnished him as aforesaid. ARTICLE 3. And provided, That, if necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through the said reservation; and on the other hand, the right of way, with free access from the same to the nearest public highway, is secured to them; as also the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways. The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land. ARTICLE 4. In consideration of the above cession, the United States agree to pay to the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, in addition to the goods and provisions distributed to them at the time of signing this treaty, the sum of two hundred thousand dollars, in the following manner, that is to say: Sixty thousand dollars, to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, the first year after the ratification of this treaty, in providing for their removal to the reservation, breaking up and fencing farms, building houses for them, supplying them with provisions and a suitable outfit, and for such other objects as he may deem necessary, and the remainder in annuities, as follows: For the first five years after the ratification of the treaty, ten thousand dollars each year, commencing September first, 1856; for the next five years, eight thousand dollars each year; for the next five years, six thousand dollars per year; and for the next five years, four thousand dollars per year.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

512

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855

All which sums of money shall be applied to the use and benefit of said Indians, under the direction of the President of the United States, who may from time to time determine, at his discretion, upon what beneficial objects to expend the same for them. And the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other proper officer, shall each year inform the President of the wishes of the Indians in relation thereto. ARTICLE 5. The United States further agree to establish at suitable points within said reservation, within one year after the ratification hereof, two schools, erecting the necessary buildings, keeping them in repair, and providing them with furniture, books, and stationery, one of which shall be an agricultural and industrial school, to be located at the agency, and to be free to the children of the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, and to employ one superintendent of teaching and two teachers; to build two blacksmiths’ shops, to one of which shall be attached a tinshop, and to the other a gunsmith’s shop; one carpenter’s shop, one wagon and plough maker’s shop, and to keep the same in repair and furnished with the necessary tools; to employ one superintendent of farming and two farmers, two blacksmiths, one tinner, one gunsmith, one carpenter, one wagon and plough maker, for the instruction of the Indians in trades and to assist them in the same; to erect one saw-mill and one flouring-mill, keeping the same in repair and furnished with the necessary tools and fixtures; to erect a hospital, keeping the same in repair and provided with the necessary medicines and furniture, and to employ a physician; and to erect, keep in repair, and provided with the necessary furniture, the building required for the accommodation of the said employees. The said buildings and establishments to be maintained and kept in repair as aforesaid, and the employees to be kept in service for the period of twenty years. And in view of the fact that the head chief of the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians is expected, and will be called upon to perform many services of a public character, occupying much of his time, the United States further agree to pay to the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians five hundred dollars per year, for the term of twenty years after the ratification hereof, as a salary for such person as the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians may select to be their head chief, to build for him at a suitable point on the reservation a comfort-

www.abc-clio.com

able house, and properly furnish the same, and to plough and fence ten acres of land. The said salary to be paid to, and the said house to be occupied by, such head chief so long as he may continue to hold that office. And it is distinctly understood and agreed that at the time of the conclusion of this treaty Kamaiakun is the duly elected and authorized head chief of the confederated tribes and bands aforesaid, styled the Yakama Nation, and is recognized as such by them and by the commissioners on the part of the United States holding this treaty; and all the expenditures and expenses contemplated in this article of this treaty shall be defrayed by the United States, and shall not be deducted from the annuities agreed to be paid to said confederated tribes and band of Indians. Nor shall the cost of transporting the goods for the annuity payments be a charge upon the annuities, but shall be defrayed by the United States. ARTICLE 6. The President may, from time to time, at his discretion, cause the whole or such portions of such reservation as he may think proper, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the same to such individuals or families of the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on the same as a permanent home, on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable. ARTICLE 7. The annuities of the aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals. ARTICLE 8. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians acknowledge their dependence upon the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and pledge themselves to commit no depredations upon the property of such citizens. And should any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proved before the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in default thereof, or if injured or destroyed, compensation may be made by the Government out of the annuities.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

Nor will they make war upon any other tribe, except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of difference between them and other Indians to the Government of the United States or its agent for decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said Indians commit depredations on any other Indians within the Territory of Washington or Oregon, the same rule shall prevail as that provided in this article in case of depredations against citizens. And the said confederated tribes and bands of Indians agree not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial. ARTICLE 9. The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine. ARTICLE 10. And provided, That there is also reserved and set apart from the lands ceded by this treaty, for the use and benefit of the aforesaid confederated tribes and bands, a tract of land not exceeding in quantity one township of six miles square, situated at the forks of the Pisquouse or Wenatshapam River, and known as the “Wenatshapam Fishery,” which said reservation shall be surveyed and marked out whenever the President may direct, and be subject to the same provisions and restrictions as other Indian reservations. ARTICLE 11. This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and the undersigned head chief, chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place and on the day and year hereinbefore written. Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent. [L. S.],

www.abc-clio.com

513

Kamaiakun, his x mark. [L. S.], Skloom, his x mark. [L. S.], Owhi, his x mark. [L. S.], Te-cole-kun, his x mark. [L. S.], La-hoom, his x mark. [L. S.], Me-ni-nock, his x mark. [L. S.], Elit Palmer, his x mark. [L. S.], Wish-och-kmpits, his x mark. [L. S.], Koo-lat-toose, his x mark. [L. S.], Shee-ah-cotte, his x mark. [L. S.], Tuck-quille, his x mark. [L. S.], Ka-loo-as, his x mark. [L. S.], Scha-noo-a, his x mark. [L. S.], Sla-kish, his x mark. [L. S.]. Signed and sealed in the presence of— James Doty, secretary of treaties, Mie. Cles. Pandosy, O. M. T., Wm. C. McKay, W. H. Tappan, sub Indian agent, W. T., C. Chirouse, O. M. T., Patrick McKenzie, interpreter, A. D. Pamburn, interpreter, Joel Palmer, superintendent Indian affairs, O. T., W. D. Biglow, A. D. Pamburn, interpreter.

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863 June 9, 1863. | 14 Stats., 647. | Ratified Apr. 17, 1867. | Proclaimed Apr. 20, 1867. Articles of agreement made and concluded at the council-ground, in the valley of the Lapwai, W. T., on the ninth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, between the United States of America, by C. H. Hale, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Charles Hutchins and S. D. Howe, U. S. Indian agents for the Territory of Washington, acting on the part and in behalf of the United States, and the Nez Percé Indians, by the chiefs, head-men, and delegates of said tribe, such articles being supplementary and amendatory to the treaty made between the United States and said tribe on the 11th day of June, 1855. ARTICLE 1. The said Nez Percé tribe agree to relinquish, and do hereby relinquish, to the United States the lands heretofore reserved for the use and occupation of the said tribe, saving and excepting so much thereof as is described in Article II for a new reservation.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

514

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

ARTICLE 2. The United States agree to reserve for a home, and for the sole use and occupation of said tribe, the tract of land included within the following boundaries, to wit: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lake Wa-ha, and running thence, northerly, to a point on the north bank of the Clearwater River, three miles below the mouth of the Lapwai, thence down the north bank of the Clearwater to the mouth of the Hatwai Creek; thence, due north, to a point seven miles distant; thence, eastwardly, to a point on the north fork of the Clearwater, seven miles distant from its mouth; thence to a point on Oro Fino Creek, five miles above its mouth; thence to a point on the north fork of the south fork of the Clearwater, five miles above its mouth; thence to a point on the south fork of the Clearwater, one mile above the bridge, on the road leading to Elk City, (so as to include all the Indian farms now within the forks); thence in a straight line, westwardly, to the place of beginning. All of which tract shall be set apart, and the abovedescribed boundaries shall be surveyed and marked out for the exclusive use and benefit of said tribe as an Indian reservation, nor shall any white man, excepting those in the employment of the Indian Department, be permitted to reside upon the said reservation without permission of the tribe and the superintendent and agent; and the said tribe agrees that so soon after the United States shall make the necessary provision for fulfilling the stipulations of this instrument as they can conveniently arrange their affairs, and not to exceed one year from its ratification, they will vacate the country hereby relinquished, and remove to and settle upon the lands herein reserved for them (except as may be hereinafter provided.) In the meantime it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any ground now occupied or under cultivation by said Indians at this time, and not included in the reservation above named. And it is provided, that any substantial improvement heretofore made by any Indian, such as fields enclosed and cultivated, or houses erected upon the lands hereby relinquished, and which he may be compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direction of the President of the United States, and payment therefor shall be made in stock or in improvements of an equal value for said Indian upon the lot which may be assigned to him within the bounds of the reservation, as he may choose, and no Indian will be required to abandon the improvements aforesaid, now occupied by

www.abc-clio.com

him, until said payment or improvement shall have been made. And it is further provided, that if any Indian living on any of the land hereby relinquished should prefer to sell his improvements to any white man, being a loyal citizen of the United States, prior to the same being valued as aforesaid, he shall be allowed so to do, but the sale or transfer of said improvements shall be made in the presence of, and with the consent and approval of, the agent or superintendent, by whom a certificate of sale shall be issued to the party purchasing, which shall set forth the amount of the consideration in kind. Before the issue of said certificate, the agent or superintendent shall be satisfied that a valuable consideration is paid, and that the party purchasing is of undoubted loyalty to the United States Government. No settlement or claim made upon the improved lands by any Indian will be permitted, except as herein provided, prior to the time specified for their removal. Any sale or transfer thus made shall be in the stead of payment for improvements from the United States. ARTICLE 3. The President shall, immediately after the ratification of this treaty, cause the boundary-lines to be surveyed, and properly marked and established; after which, so much of the lands hereby reserved as may be suitable for cultivation shall be surveyed into lots of twenty acres each, and every male person of the tribe who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, or is the head of a family, shall have the privilege of locating upon one lot as a permanent home for such person, and the lands so surveyed shall be allotted under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, having such reference to their settlement as may secure adjoining each other the location of the different families pertaining to each band, so far as the same may be practicable. Such rules and regulations shall be prescribed by the President, or under his direction, as will insure to the family, in case of the death of the head thereof, the possession and enjoyment of such permanent home, and the improvements thereon. When the assignments as above shall have been completed, certificates shall be issued by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or under his direction, for the tracts assigned in severalty, specifying the names of the individuals to whom they have been assigned respectively, and that said tracts are set apart for the perpetual and exclusive use and benefit of such assignees and their heirs. Until otherwise provided by law, such tracts shall be exempt from levy, taxation, or sale, and shall

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

515

be alienable in fee, or leased, or otherwise disposed of, only to the United States, or to persons then being members of the Nez Percé tribe, and of Indian blood, with the permission of the President, and under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall prescribe; and if any such person or family shall at any time neglect or refuse to occupy and till a portion of the land so assigned, and on which they have located, or shall rove from place to place, the President may cancel the assignment, and may also withhold from such person or family their proportion of the annuities or other payments due them until they shall have returned to such permanent home, and resumed the pursuits of industry; and in default of their return, the tract may be declared abandoned, and thereafter assigned to some other person or family of such tribe. The residue of the land hereby reserved shall be held in common for pasturage for the sole use and benefit of the Indians: Provided, however, That from time to time, as members of the tribe may come upon the reservation, or may become of proper age, after the expiration of the time of one year after the ratification of this treaty, as aforesaid, and claim the privileges granted under this article, lots may be assigned from the lands thus held in common, wherever the same may be suitable for cultivation. No State or territorial legislature shall remove the restriction herein provided for, without the consent of Congress, and no State or territorial law to that end shall be deemed valid until the same has been specially submitted to Congress for its approval.

thousand dollars; for the third year, twenty-five thousand dollars; for the fourth year, fifteen thousand dollars.

ARTICLE 4. In consideration of the relinquishment herein made the United States agree to pay to the said tribe, in addition to the annuities provided by the treaty of June 11, 1855, and the goods and provisions distributed to them at the time of signing this treaty, the sum of two hundred and sixty-two thousand and five hundred dollars, in manner following, to wit:

Fifth. A further sum of two thousand five hundred dollars shall be paid within one year after the ratification hereof, to enable the Indians to build two churches, one of which is to be located at some suitable point on the Kamia, and the other on the Lapwai.

First. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to enable the Indians to remove and locate upon the reservation, to be expended in the ploughing of land, and the fencing of the several lots, which may be assigned to those individual members of the tribe who will accept the same in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, which said sum shall be divided into four annual instalments, as follows: For the first year after the ratification of this treaty, seventy thousand dollars; for the second year, forty

www.abc-clio.com

Second. Fifty thousand dollars to be paid the first year after the ratification of this treaty in agricultural implements, to include wagons or carts, harness, and cattle, sheep, or other stock, as may be deemed most beneficial by the superintendent of Indian affairs, or agent, after ascertaining the wishes of the Indians in relation thereto. Third. Ten thousand dollars for the erection of a saw and flouring mill, to be located at Kamia, the same to be erected within one year after the ratification hereof. Fourth. Fifty thousand dollars for the boarding and clothing of the children who shall attend the schools, in accordance with such rules or regulations as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may prescribe, providing the schools and boarding-houses with necessary furniture, the purchase of necessary wagons, teams, agricultural implements, tools, &c., for their use, and for the fencing of such lands as may be needed for gardening and farming purposes, for the use and benefit of the schools, to be expended as follows: The first year after the ratification of this treaty, six thousand dollars; for the next fourteen years, three thousand dollars each year; and for the succeeding year, being the sixteenth and last instalment, two thousand dollars.

ARTICLE 5. The United States further agree, that in addition to a head chief the tribe shall elect two subordinate chiefs, who shall assist him in the performance of his public services, and each subordinate chief shall have the same amount of land ploughed and fenced, with comfortable house and necessary furniture, and to whom the same salary shall be paid as is already provided for the head chief in article 5 of the treaty of June 11, 1855, the salary to be paid and the houses and land to be occupied during the same period and under like restrictions as therein mentioned.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

516

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

And for the purpose of enabling the agent to erect said buildings, and to plough and fence the land, as well as to procure the necessary furniture, and to complete and furnish the house, &c., of the head chief, as heretofore provided, there shall be appropriated, to be expended within the first year after the ratification hereof, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. And inasmuch as several of the provisions of said art. 5th of the treaty of June 11, 1855, pertaining to the erection of school-houses, hospital, shops, necessary buildings for employe[e]s and for the agency, as well as providing the same with necessary furniture, tools, &c., have not yet been complied with, it is hereby stipulated that there shall be appropriated, to be expended for the purposes herein specified during the first year after the ratification hereof, the following sums, to wit: First. Ten thousand dollars for the erection of the two schools, including boarding-houses and the necessary out-buildings; said schools to be conducted on the manual-labor system as far as practicable. Second. Twelve hundred dollars for the erection of the hospital, and providing the necessary furniture for the same. Third. Two thousand dollars for the erection of a blacksmith’s shop, to be located at Kamia, to aid in the completion of the smith’s shop at the agency, and to purchase the necessary tools, iron, steel, &c.; and to keep the same in repair and properly stocked with necessary tools and materials, there shall be appropriated thereafter, for the fifteen years next succeeding, the sum of five hundred dollars each year. Fourth. Three thousand dollars for erection of houses for employe[e]s, repairs of mills, shops, &c., and providing necessary furniture, tools, and materials. For the same purpose, and to procure from year to year the necessary articles—that is to say, sawlogs, nails, glass, hardware, &c.—there shall be appropriated thereafter, for the twelve years next succeeding, the sum of two thousand dollars each year; and for the next three years, one thousand dollars each year. And it is further agreed that the United States shall employ, in addition to those already mentioned in

www.abc-clio.com

art. 5th of the treaty of June 11, 1855, two matrons to take charge of the boarding-schools, two assistant teachers, one farmer, one carpenter, and two millers. All the expenditures and expenses contemplated in this treaty, and not otherwise provided for, shall be defrayed by the United States. ARTICLE 6. In consideration of the past services and faithfulness of the Indian chief, Timothy, it is agreed that the United States shall appropriate the sum of six hundred dollars, to aid him in the erection of a house upon the lot of land which may be assigned to him, in accordance with the provisions of the third article of this treaty. ARTICLE 7. The United States further agree that the claims of certain members of the Nez Percé tribe against the Government for services rendered and for horses furnished by them to the Oregon mounted volunteers, as appears by certificate issued by W. H. Fauntleroy, A. R. Qr. M. and Com. Oregon volunteers, on the 6th of March, 1856, at Camp Cornelius, and amounting to the sum of four thousand six hundred and sixty-five dollars, shall be paid to them in full, in gold coin. ARTICLE 8. It is also understood that the aforesaid tribe do hereby renew their acknowledgments of dependence upon the Government of the United States, their promises of friendship, and other pledges, as set forth in the eighth article of the treaty of June 11, 1855; and further, that all the provisions of said treaty which are not abrogated or specifically changed by any article herein contained, shall remain the same to all intents and purposes as formerly,—the same obligations resting upon the United States, the same privileges continued to the Indians outside of the reservation, and the same rights secured to citizens of the U. S. as to right of way upon the streams and over the roads which may run through said reservation, as are therein set forth. But it is further provided, that the United States is the only competent authority to declare and establish such necessary roads and highways, and that no other right is intended to be hereby granted to citizens of the United States than the right of way upon or over such roads as may thus be legally

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863

established: Provided, however, That the roads now usually travelled shall, in the mean time, be taken and deemed as within the meaning of this article, until otherwise enacted by act of Congress or by the authority of the Indian Department. And the said tribe hereby consent, that upon the public roads which may run across the reservation there may be established, at such points as shall be necessary for public convenience, hotels, or stagestands, of the number and necessity of which the agent or superintendent shall be the sole judge, who shall be competent to license the same, with the privilege of using such amount of land for pasturage and other purposes connected with such establishment as the agent or superintendent shall deem necessary, it being understood that such lands for pasturage are to be enclosed, and the boundaries thereof described in the license. And it is further understood and agreed that all ferries and bridges within the reservation shall be held and managed for the benefit of said tribe. Such rules and regulations shall be made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, as shall regulate the travel on the highways, the management of the ferries and bridges, the licensing of public houses, and the leasing of lands, as herein provided, so that the rents, profits, and issues thereof shall inure to the benefit of said tribe, and so that the persons thus licensed, or necessarily employed in any of the above relations, shall be subject to the control of the Indian Department, and to the provisions of the act of Congress “to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers.” All timber within the bounds of the reservation is exclusively the property of the tribe, excepting that the U. S. Government shall be permitted to use thereof for any purpose connected with its affairs, either in carrying out any of the provisions of this treaty, or in the maintaining of its necessary forts or garrisons. The United States also agree to reserve all springs or fountains not adjacent to, or directly connected with, the streams or rivers within the lands hereby relinquished, and to keep back from settlement or entry so much of the surrounding land as may be necessary to prevent the said springs or fountains being

www.abc-clio.com

517

enclosed; and, further, to preserve a perpetual right of way to and from the same, as watering places, for the use in common of both whites and Indians. ARTICLE 9. Inasmuch as the Indians in council have expressed their desire that Robert Newell should have confirmed to him a piece of land lying between Snake and Clearwater Rivers, the same having been given to him on the 9th day of June, 1861, and described in an instrument of writing bearing that date, and signed by several chiefs of the tribe, it is hereby agreed that the said Robert Newell shall receive from the United States a patent for the said tract of land. ARTICLE 10. This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof the said C. H. Hale, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Charles Hutchins and S. D. Howe, United States Indian agents in the Territory of Washington, and the chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the aforesaid Nez Perce tribe of Indians, have hereunto set their hands and seals at the place and on the day and year hereinbefore written. Calvin H. Hale, Superintendent Indian Affairs, Wash. T. [SEAL.] Chas. Hutchins, United States Indian agent, Wash. T. [SEAL.] S. D. Howe, United States Indian agent, Wash. T. [SEAL.] Fa-Ind-7-1803 Lawyer, Head Chief Nez Perces Nation. [SEAL.] Ute-sin-male-e-cum, x [SEAL.] Ha-harch-tuesta, x [SEAL.] Tip-ulania-timecca, x [SEAL.] Es-coatum, x [SEAL.] Timothy, x [SEAL.] Levi, x [SEAL.] Jason, x [SEAL.] Ip-she-ne-wish-kin, (Capt. John,) x [SEAL.] Weptas-jump-ki, x [SEAL.] We-as-cus, x [SEAL.] Pep-hoom-kan, (Noah,) x [SEAL.] Shin-ma-sha-ho-soot, x [SEAL.] Nie-ki-lil-meh-hoom, (Jacob,) x [SEAL.] Stoop-toop-nin, x [SEAL.] Su-we-cus, x [SEAL.]

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

518

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865

Wal-la-ta-mana, x [SEAL.] He-kaikt-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] Whis-tas-ket, x [SEAL.] Neus-ne-keun, x [SEAL.] Kul-lou-o-haikt, x [SEAL.] Wow-en-am-ash-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] Kan-pow-e-een, x [SEAL.] Watai-watai-wa-haikt, x [SEAL.] Kup-kup-pellia, x [SEAL.] Wap-tas-ta-mana, x [SEAL.] Peo-peo-ip-se-wat, x [SEAL.] Louis-in-ha-cush-nim, x [SEAL.] Lam-lim-si-lilp-nim, x [SEAL.] Tu-ki-lai-kish, x [SEAL.] Sah-kan-tai, (Eagle,) x [SEAL.] We-ah-se-nat, x [SEAL.] Hin-mia-tun-pin, x [SEAL.] Ma-hi-a-kim, x [SEAL.] Shock-lo-turn-wa-haikt, (Jonah,) x [SEAL.] Kunness-tak-mal, x [SEAL.] Tu-lat-sy-wat-kin, x [SEAL.] Tuck-e-tu-et-as, x [SEAL.] Nic-a-las-in, x [SEAL.] Was-atis-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] Wow-es-en-at-im, x [SEAL.] Hiram, x [SEAL.] Howlish-wampum, x [SEAL.] Wat-ska-leeks, x [SEAL.] Wa-lai-tus, x [SEAL.] Ky-e-wee-pus, x [SEAL.] Ko-ko-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] Reuben, Tip-ia-la-na-uy-kalatsekin, x [SEAL.] Wish-la-na-ka-nin, x [SEAL.] Me-tat-ueptas, (Three Feathers,) x [SEAL.] Ray-kay-mass, x [SEAL.] Signed and sealed in presence of— George F. Whitworth, Secretary. Justus Steinberger, Colonel U. S. Volunteers. R. F. Malloy, Colonel Cavalry, O. V. J. S. Rinearson, Major First Cavalry Oregon Volunteers. William Kapus, First Lieutenant and Adjutant First W. T. Infantry U. S. Volunteers. Harrison Olmstead. Jno. Owen, (Bitter Root.). James O’Neill. J. B. Buker, M. D. George W. Elber. A. A. Spalding, assistant interpreter. Perrin B. Whitman, interpreter for the council.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Oct, 14, 1865. | 14 Stats., 703. | Ratified May 22, 1866. | Proclaimed Feb. 2, 1867. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the camp on the Little Arkansas River, in the State of Kansas, on the fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, by and between John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the undersigned, chiefs and head-men of and representing the confederate tribes of Arrapahoe and Cheyenne Indians of the Upper Arkansas River, they being duly authorized by their respective tribes to act in the premises. ARTICLE 1. It is agreed by the parties to this treaty that hereafter perpetual peace shall be maintained between the people and Government of the United States and the Indians parties hereto, and that the Indians parties hereto, shall forever remain at peace with each other, and with all other Indians who sustain friendly relations with the Government of the United States. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this article it is agreed that in case hostile acts or depredations are committed by the people of the United States, or by Indians on friendly terms with the United States, against the tribe or tribes, or the individual members of the tribe or tribes, who are parties to this treaty, such hostile acts or depredations shall not be redressed by a resort to arms, but the party or parties aggrieved shall submit their complaints through their agent to the President of the United States, and thereupon an impartial arbitration shall be had, under his direction, and the award thus made shall be binding on all parties interested, and the Government of the United States will in good faith enforce the same. And the Indians, parties hereto, on their part, agree, in case crimes or other violations of law shall be committed by any person or persons, members of their tribe, such person or persons shall, upon complaint being made, in writing, to their agent, superintendent of Indian affairs, or to other proper authority, by the party injured, and verified by affidavit, be delivered to the person duly authorized to take such person or persons into custody, to the end that such person or persons may be punished accoring to the laws of the United States.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865

ARTICLE 2. The United States hereby agree that the district of country embraced within the following limits, or such portion of the same as may hereafter be designated by the President of the United States for that purpose, viz: commencing at the mouth of the Red Creek or Red Fork of the Arkansas River; thence up said creek or fork to its source; thence westwardly to a point on the Cimarone River, opposite the mouth of Buffalo Creek; thence due north to the Arkansas River; thence down the same to the beginning, shall be, and is hereby, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the tribes who are parties to this treaty, and of such other friendly tribes as they may from time to time agree to admit among them, and that no white person, except officers, agents, and employees of the Government, shall go upon or settle within the country embraced within said limits, unless formerly admitted and incorporated into some one of the tribes lawfully residing there, according to its laws and usages: Provided, however, That said Indians shall not be required to settle upon said reservation until such time as the United States shall have extinguished all claims of title thereto on the part of other Indians, so that the Indians parties hereto may live thereon at peace with all other tribes: Provided, however, That as soon as practicable, with the assent of said tribe, the President of the United States shall designate for said tribes a reservation, no part of which shall be within the State of Kansas, and cause them as soon as practicable to remove to and settle thereon, but no such reservation shall be designated upon any reserve belonging to any other Indian tribe or tribes without their consent. The Indians parties hereto, on their part, expressly agree to remove to and accept as their permanent home the country embraced within said limits whenever directed so to do by the President of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of this treaty, and that they will not go from said country for hunting or other purposes without the consent in writing of their agent or other authorized person, such written consent in all cases specifying the purpose for which such leave is granted, and shall be borne with them upon their excursions as evidence that they are rightfully away from their reservation, and shall be respected by all officers, employees, and citizens of the United States as their sufficient safeguard and protection against injury or

www.abc-clio.com

519

damage in person or property by any and all persons whomsoever. It is further agreed by the Indians parties hereto that when absent from their reservation they will refrain from the commission of any depredations or injuries to the person or property of all persons sustaining friendly relations with the Government of the United States; that they will not, while so absent, encamp by day or night within ten miles of any of the main traveled routes or roads through the country to which they go, or of the military posts, towns, or villages therein, without the consent of the commanders of such military posts, or of the civil authorities of such towns or villages; and that henceforth they will, and do hereby, relinquish all claims or rights in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and more especially their claims and rights in and to the country bounded as follows, viz: beginning at the junction of the north and south forks of the Platte River; thence up the north fork to the top of the principal range of the Rocky Mountains, or to the Red Buttes; thence southwardly along the summit of the Rocky Mountains to the headwaters of the Arkansas River; thence down the Arkansas River to the Cimarone crossing of the same; thence to the place of beginning; which country they claim to have originally owned, and never to have relinquished the title thereto. ARTICLE 3. It is further agreed that until the Indians parties hereto have removed to the reservation provided for by the preceding article in pursuance of the stipulations thereof, said Indians shall be, and they are hereby, expressly permitted to reside upon and range at pleasure throughout the unsettled portions of that part of the country they claim as originally theirs, which lies between the Arkansas and Platte Rivers; and that they shall and will not go elsewhere, except upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the preceding article in relation to leaving the reservation thereby provided for: Provided, That the provisions of the preceding article in regard to encamping within ten miles of main travelled routes, military posts, towns, and villages shall be in full force as to occupancy of the country named and permitted by the terms of this article: Provided, further, That they, the said Indians, shall and will at all times during such occupancy, without delay, report to the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

520

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865

commander of the nearest military post the presence in or approach to said country of any hostile bands of Indians whatsoever. ARTICLE 4. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that the United States may lay off and build through the reservation, provided for by Article 2 of this treaty, such roads or highways as may be deemed necessary; and may also establish such military posts within the same as may be found necessary in order to preserve peace among the Indians, and in order to enforce such laws, rules, and regulations as are now, or may from time to time be, prescribed by the President and Congress of the United States for the protection of the rights of persons and property among the Indians residing upon said reservation; and further, that in time of war such other military posts as may be considered essential to the general interests of the United States may be established: Provided, however, That upon the building of such roads, or establishment of such military posts, the amount of injury sustained by reason thereof by the Indians inhabiting said reservation shall be ascertained under direction of the President of the United States, and thereupon such compensation shall be made to said Indians as in the judgment of the Congress of the United States may be deemed just and proper. ARTICLE 5. At the special request of the Cheyenne and Arrapahoe Indians, parties to this treaty, the United States agree to grant, by patent in fee-simple, to the following-named persons, all of whom are related to the Cheyennes or Arrapahoes by blood, to each an amount of land equal to one section of six hundred and forty acres, viz: To Mrs. Margaret Wilmarth and her children, Virginia Fitzpatrick, and Andrew Jackson Fitzpatrick; to Mrs. Mary Keith and her children, William Keith, Mary J. Keith, and Francis Keith; to Mrs. Matilda Pepperdin and her child, Miss Margaret Pepperdin; to Robert Poisal and John Poisal; to Edmund Guerrier, Rosa Guerrier, and Julia Guerrier; to William W. Bent’s daughter, Mary Bent Moore, and her three children, Adia Moore, William Bent Moore, and George Moore; to William W. Bent’s children, George Bent, Charles Bent, and Julia Bent; to A-mache, the wife of John Prowers, and her children, Mary Prowers and Susan Prowers; to the children of Otese-ot-see, wife of John Y. Sickles, viz: Margaret, Minnie, and John; to the children of John S. Smith, inter-

www.abc-clio.com

preter, William Gilpin Smith, and daughter Armama; to Jenny Lind Crocker, daughter of Ne-sou-hoe, or Are-you-there, wife of Lieutenant Crocker; to—Winsor, daughter of Tow-e-nah, wife of A. T. Winsor, sutler, formerly at Fort Lyon. Said lands to be selected under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, from the reservation established by the 1st article of their treaty of February 18, A. D. 1861: Provided, That said locations shall not be made upon any lands heretofore granted by the United States to any person, State, or corporation, for any purpose. ARTICLE 6. The United States being desirous to express its condemnation of, and, as far as may be, repudiate the gross and wanton out-rages perpetrated against certain bands of Cheyenne and Arrapahoe Indians, on the twenty-ninth day of November, A. D. 1864, at Sand Creek, in Colorado Territory, while the said Indians were at peace with the United States, and under its flag, whose protection they had by lawful authority been promised and induced to seek, and the Government being desirous to make some suitable reparation for the injuries then done, will grant three hundred and twenty acres of land by patent to each of the following-named chiefs of said bands, viz: Moke-ta-ve-to, or Black Kettle; Oh-tah-ha-ne-soweel, or Seven Bulls; Alik-ke-home-ma, or Little Robe; Moke-tah-vo-ve-hoe, or Black White Man; and will in like manner grant to each other person of said bands made a widow, or who lost a parent upon that occasion, one hundred and sixty acres of land, the names of such persons to be ascertained under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That said grants shall be conditioned that all devises, grants, alienations, leases, and contracts relative to said lands, made or entered into during the period of fifty years from the date of such patents, shall be unlawful and void. Said lands shall be selected under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior within the limits of country hereby set apart as a reservation for the Indians parties to this treaty, and shall be free from assessment and taxation so long as they remain inalienable. The United States will also pay in United States securities, animals, goods, provisions, or such other useful articles as may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be deemed best adapted to the respective wants and conditions of the persons named in the schedule hereto annexed, they being present and members of the bands who suffered at Sand Creek, upon the occa-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865

sion aforesaid, the sums set opposite their names, respectively, as a compensation for property belonging to them, and then and there destroyed or taken from them by the United States troops aforesaid. ARTICLE 7. The United States agree that they will expend annually during the period of forty years, from and after the ratification of this treaty, for the benefit of the Indians who are parties hereto, and of such others as may unite with them in pursuance of the terms hereof, in such manner and for such purposes as, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, for the time being, will best subserve their wants and interests as a people, the following amounts, that is to say, until such time as said Indians shall be removed to their reservation, as provided for by Article 2 of this treaty, an amount which shall be equal to twenty dollars per capita for each person entitled to participate in the beneficial provisions of this treaty, and from and after the time when such removal shall have been accomplished, an amount which shall be equal to forty dollars per capita for each person entitled as aforesaid. Such proportion of the expenditure provided for by this article as may be considered expedient to distribute in the form of annuities shall be delivered to said Indians as follows, viz: one-third thereof during the spring, and two-thirds thereof during the autumn of each year. For the purpose of determining from time to time the aggregate amount to be expended under the provisions of this article, it is agreed that the number entitled to its beneficial provisions the coming year is two thousand eight hundred, and that an accurate census of the Indians entitled shall be taken at the time of the annuity payment in the spring of each year by their agent or other person designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Interior, which census shall be the basis on which the amount to be expended the next ensuing year shall be determined. ARTICLE 8. The Indians parties to this treaty expressly covenant and agree that they will use their utmost endeavor to induce that portion of the respective tribes not now present to unite with them and acceed to the provisions of this treaty, which union and accession shall be evidenced and made binding on all parties whenever such absentees shall have participated in the beneficial provisions of this treaty.

www.abc-clio.com

521

ARTICLE 9. Upon the ratification of this treaty all former treaties are hereby abrogated. In testimony whereof, the said Commissioners as aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the confederated tribes of the Arrapahoes and Cheyennes of the Upper Arkansas, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place ard on the day and year first hereinbefore written. John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.] Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.] Thos. Murphy, [SEAL.] Kit Carson, [SEAL.] Wm. W. Bent, [SEAL.] J. H. Leavenworth, [SEAL.] James Steele, [SEAL.] Commissioners on the part of the United States. Moke-ta-ve-to, or Black Kettle, head chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Oh-to-ah-ne-so-to-wheo, or Seven Bulls, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Hark-kah-o-me, or Little Robe, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Moke-tah-vo-ve-ho, or Black White Man, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Mun-a-men-ek, or Eagle’s Head, headman, his x mark. [SEAL.] O-to-ah-nis-to, or Bull that Hears, headman, his x mark. [SEAL.] On the part of the Cheyennes. Oh-has-tee, or Little Raven, head chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Oh-hah-mah-hah, or Storm, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Pah-uf-pah-top, or Big Mouth, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Ah-cra-kah-tau-nah, or Spotted Wolf, chief, his x mark. [SEAL.] Ah-nah-wat-tan, or Black Man, headman, his x mark. [SEAL.] Nah-a-nah-cha, or Chief in Everything, headman, his x mark. [SEAL.] Chi-e-nuk, or Haversack, headman, his x mark. [SEAL.]

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

522

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

On the part of the Arrapahoes. Signed and sealed in the presence of— John S. Smith, United States interpreter. W. R. Irwin, secretaries. O. T. Atwood, secretaries. S. A. Kingman, secretaries. D. C. McNeil. E. W. Wynkoop. Bon. H. Van Havre. J. E. Badger. W. W. Rich. N. B.—The Apache tribe was brought into the provisions of the above treaty by the second article of the treaty with the Apaches, Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, proclaimed May 26, 1866.

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 Mar. 21, 1866. | 14 Stats., 755. | Ratified, July 19, 1866. | Proclamed, Aug. 16, 1866. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Washington, D.C., March 21, A.D., 1866, between the United States Government, by its commissioners, D.N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Ely S. Parker, and the Seminole Indians, by their chiefs, John Chup-co, or Long John, Cho-cote-harjo, Fos-ha[r]-jo, John F. Brown. Whereas existing, treaties between the United States and the Seminole Nation are insufficient to meet their mutual necessities; and Whereas the Seminole Nation made a treaty with the so-called Confederate States, August 1st, 1861, whereby they threw off their allegiance to the United States, and unsettled their treaty relations with the United States, and thereby incurred the liability of forfeiture of all lands and other property held by grant or gift of the United States; and whereas a treaty of peace and amity was entered into between the United States and the Seminole and other tribes at Fort Smith, September 13 [10,] 1865, whereby the Seminoles revoked, canceled, and repudiated the said treaty with the so-called Confederate States; and whereas the United States, through its commissioners, in said treaty of peace promised to enter into treaty with the Seminole Nation to arrange and settle all questions relating to and growing out of said

www.abc-clio.com

treaty with the so-called Confederate States; and whereas the United States, in view of said treaty of the Seminole Nation with the enemies of the Government of the United States, and the consequent liabilities of said Seminole Nation, and in view of its urgent necessities for more lands in the Indian Territory, requires a cession by said Seminole Nation of part of its present reservation, and is willing to pay therefor a reasonable price, while at the same time providing new and adequate land for them: Now, therefore, the United States, by its commissioners aforesaid, and the above-named delegates of the Seminole Nation, the day and year above written, mutually stipulate and agree, on behalf of the respective parties, as follows, to wit; ARTICLE 1. There shall be perpetual peace between the United States and the Seminole Nation, and the Seminoles agree to be and remain firm allies of the United States, and always faithfully aid the Government thereof to suppress insurrection and put down its enemies. The Seminoles also agree to remain at peace with all other Indian tribes and with themselves. In return for these pledges of peace and friendship, the United States guarantee them quiet possession of their country, and protection against hostilities on the part of other tribes; and, in the event of such hostilities, that the tribe commencing and prosecuting the same shall make just reparation therefor. Therefore the Seminoles agree to a military occupation of their country at the option and expense of the United States. A general amnesty of all past offences against the laws of the United States, committed by any member of the Seminole Nation, is hereby declared; and the Seminoles, anxious for the restoration of kind and friendly feelings among themselves, do hereby declare an amnesty for all past offenses against their government, and no Indian or Indians shall be proscribed or any act of forfeiture or confiscation passed against those who have remained friendly to or taken up arms against the United States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges with other members of said tribe, and all laws heretofore passed inconsistent herewith are hereby declared inoperative. A copy of this agreement, which has never been ratified, is found in an Appendix to the Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1865, with the report of the negotiating commissioners, which copy

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

has been reproduced in the appendix to this compilation, post, p. 1050. ARTICLE 2. The Seminole Nation covenant that henceforth in said nation slavery shall not exist, nor involuntary servitude, except for and in punishment of crime, whereof the offending party shall first have been duly convicted in accordance with law, applicable to all the members of said nation. And inasmuch as there are among the Seminoles many persons of African descent and blood, who have no interest or property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it is stipulated that hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other of the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle there, shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons of whatever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe. ARTICLE 3. In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon, the Seminoles cede and convey to the United States their entire domain, being the tract of land ceded to the Seminole Indians by the Creek Nation under the provisions of article first, (1st,) treaty of the United States with the Creeks and Seminoles, made and concluded at Washington, D. C., August 7, 1856. In consideration of said grant and cession of their lands, estimated at two million one hundred and sixty-nine thousand and eighty (2,169,080) acres, the United States agree to pay said Seminole Nation the sum of three hundred and twenty-five thousand three hundred and sixty-two ($325,362) dollars, said purchase being at the rate of fifteen cents per acre. The United States having obtained by grant of the Creek Nation the westerly half of their lands, hereby grant to the Seminole Nation the portion thereof hereafter described, which shall constitute the national domain of the Seminole Indians. Said lands so granted by the United States to the Seminole Nation are bounded and described as follows, to wit: Beginning on the Canadian River where the line dividing the Creek lands according to the terms of their sale to the United States by their treaty of February 6, 1866, following said line due north to where said line crosses the north fork of the Canadian River; thence up said north fork of the Canadian River a distance sufficient to make two hundred thousand acres by running due south to the Cana-

www.abc-clio.com

523

dian River; thence down said Canadian River to the place of beginning. In consideration of said cession of two hundred thousand acres of land described above, the Seminole Nation agrees to pay therefor the price of fifty cents per acre, amounting to the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, which amount shall be deducted from the sum paid by the United States for Seminole lands under the stipulations above written. The balance due the Seminole Nation after making said deduction, amounting to one hundred thousand dollars, the United States agree to pay in the following manner, to wit: Thirty thousand dollars shall be paid to enable the Seminoles to occupy, restore, and improve their farms, and to make their nation independent and selfsustaining, and shall be distributed for that purpose under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior; twenty thousand dollars shall be paid in like manner for the purpose of purchasing agricultural implements, seeds, cows, and other stock; fifteen thousand dollars shall be paid for the erection of a mill suitable to accommodate said nation of Indians; seventy thousand dollars to remain in the United States Treasury, upon which the United States shall pay an annual interest of five per cent.; fifty thousand of said sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be a permanent school-fund, the interest of which shall be paid annually and appropriated to the support of schools; the remainder of the seventy thousand dollars, being twenty thousand dollars, shall remain a permanent fund. This refers to the Creek treaty of June 14, 1866, post, p. 931. See Annual Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1866, p. 10, interest of which shall be paid annually for the support of the Seminole government; forty thousand three hundred and sixty-two dollars shall be appropriated and expended for subsisting said Indians, discriminating in favor of the destitute; all of which amounts, excepting the seventy thousand dollars to remain in the Treasury as a permanent fund, shall be paid upon the ratification of said treaty, and disbursed in such manner as the Secretary of the Interior may direct. The balance, fifty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay the losses ascertained and awarded as hereinafter provided, shall be paid when said awards shall have been duly made and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. And in case said fifty thousand dollars shall be insufficient to pay all said awards, it shall be distributed pro rata to those whose claims are so allowed; and until said awards shall be thus paid, the United States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

524

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

and for such purposes as the Secretary of the Interior may direct, interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum from the date of the ratification of this treaty. ARTICLE 4. To reimburse such members of the Seminole Nation as shall be duly adjudged to have remained loyal and faithful to their treaty relations to the United States, during the recent rebellion of the so-called Confederate States for the losses actually sustained by them thereby, after the ratification of this treaty, or so soon thereafter as the Secretary of the Interior shall direct, he shall appoint a board of commissioners, not to exceed three in number, who shall proceed to the Seminole country and investigate and determine said losses. Previous to said investigation the agent of the Seminole Nation shall prepare a census or enumeration of said tribe, and make a roll of all Seminoles who did in no manner aid or abet the enemies of the Government, but remained loyal during said rebellion; and no award shall be made by said commissioners for such losses unless the name of the claimant appear on said roll, and no compensation shall be allowed any person for such losses whose name does not appear on said roll, unless said claimant, within six months from the date of the completion of said roll, furnishes proof satisfactory to said board, or to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he has at all times remained loyal to the United States, according to his treaty obligations. All evidence touching said claims shall be taken by said commissioners, or any of them, under oath, and their awards made, together with the evidence, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for his approval, and that of the Secretary of the Interior. Said commissioners shall be paid by the United States such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior may direct. The provisions of this article shall extend to and embrace the claims for losses sustained by loyal members of said tribe, irrespective of race or color, whether at the time of said losses the claimants shall have been in servitude or not; provided said claimants are made members of said tribe by the stipulations of this treaty. ARTICLE 5. The Seminole Nation hereby grant a right of way through their lands to any company which shall be duly authorized by Congress, and shall, with the express consent and approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, undertake to construct a railroad from any point on their eastern to their western or south-

www.abc-clio.com

ern boundary; but said railroad company, together with all its agents and employés, shall be subject to the laws of the United States relating to the intercourse with Indian tribes, and also to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for that purpose. And the Seminoles agree to sell to the United States, or any company duly authorized as aforesaid, such lands, not legally owned or occupied by a member or members of the Seminole Nation lying along the line of said contemplated railroad, not exceeding on each side thereof a belt or strip of land three miles in width, at such price per acre as may be eventually agreed upon between said Seminole Nation and the party or parties building said road—subject to the approval of the President of the United States: Provided, however, That said land thus sold shall not be reconveyed, leased, or rented to, or be occupied by, any one not a citizen of the Seminole Nation, according to its laws and recognized usages: Provided also, That officers, servants, and employés of said railroad necessary to its construction and management shall not be excluded from such necessary occupancy, they being subject to the provisions of the Indian-intercourse laws, and such rules and regulations as may be established by the Secretary of the Interior; nor shall any conveyance of said lands be made to the party building and managing said road, until its completion as a first-class railroad and its acceptance as such by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 6. Inasmuch as there are no agency buildings upon the new Seminole reservation, it is therefore further agreed that the United States shall cause to be constructed, at an expense not exceeding ten thousand (10,000) dollars, suitable agency buildings, the site whereof shall be selected by the agent of said tribe, under the direction of the superintendent of Indian affairs; in consideration whereof, the Seminole Nation hereby relinquish and cede forever to the United States one section of their lands upon which said agency buildings shall be directed, [erected,] which land shall revert to said nation when no longer used by the United States, upon said nation paying a fair value for said buildings at the time vacated. ARTICLE 7. The Seminole Nation agrees to such legislation as Congress and the President may deem necessary for

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

the better administration of the rights of person and property within the Indian Territory: Provided, however, [That] said legislation shall not in any manner interfere with or annul their present tribal organization, rights, laws, privileges, and customs. The Seminole Nation also agree that a general council, consisting of delegates elected by each nation, a tribe lawfully resident within the Indian Territory, may be annually convened in said Territory which council shall be organized in such manner and possess such powers as are hereinafter described: 1st. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the Interior, and prior to the first session of said council, a census or enumeration of each tribe lawfully resident in said Territory shall be taken, under the direction of the superintendent of Indian affairs, who, for that purpose, is hereby authorized to designate and appoint competent persons, whose compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior and paid by the United States. 2d. The first general council shall consist of one member from each tribe, and an additional member for each one thousand Indians, or each fraction of a thousand greater than five hundred, being members of any tribe lawfully resident in said Territory, and shall be elected by said tribes, respectively, who may assent to the establishment of said general council; and if none should be thus formally selected by any nation or tribe, the said nation or tribe shall be represented in said general council by the chiefs and headmen of said tribes, to be taken in the order of their rank, in the same number and proportion as above indicated. After the said census shall have been taken and completed, the superintendent of Indian affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe the number of members of said council to which they shall be entitled under the provisions of this article; and the persons so entitled to represent said tribe shall meet at such time and place as he shall appoint; but thereafter the time and place of the sessions of said council shall be determined by its action: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of thirty days, And provided That special sessions of said council may be called by said superintendent whenever, in his judgment, or that of the Secretary of the Interior, the interest of said tribes shall require. 3d. Said general council shall have power to legislate upon all rightful subjects and matters pertain-

www.abc-clio.com

525

ing to the intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations resident in said Territory; the arrest and extradition of criminals and offenders escaping from one tribe to another; the administration of justice between members of the several tribes of said Territory, and persons other than Indians and members of said tribes or nations; the construction of works of internal improvement and the common defence and safety of the nation of said Territory. All laws enacted by said council shall take effect at such time as may therein be provided, unless suspended by direction of the Secretary of the Interior or the President of the United States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States; nor shall said council legislate upon matters pertaining to the organization, laws, or customs of the several tribes except as herein provided for. 4th. Said council shall be presided over by the superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of his absence for any cause, the duties of said superintendent enumerated in this article shall be performed by such person as the Secretary of the Interior may direct. 5th. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a secretary of said council, whose duty it shall be to keep an accurate record of all the proceedings of said council, and who shall transmit a true copy of all such proceedings, duly certified by the superintendent of Indian affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior immediately after the session of said council. He shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States an annual salary of five hundred dollars. 6th. The members of said council shall be paid by the United States the sum of four dollars per diem during the time actually in attendance upon the sessions of said council, and at the rate of four dollars for every twenty miles necessarily traveled by them in going to said council and returning to their homes, respectively, to be certified by the secretary of the said council and the sup[erintenden]t of Indian affairs. 7th. The Seminoles also agree that a court or courts may be established in said Territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner as Congress may by law provide.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

526

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

ARTICLE 8. The stipulations of this treaty are to be a full settlement of all claims of said Seminole Nation for damages and losses of every kind growing out of the late rebellion, and all expenditures by the United States of annuities in clothing and feeding refugee and destitute Indians since the diversion of annuities for that purpose, consequent upon the late war with the so-called Confederate States. And the Seminoles hereby ratify and confirm all such diversions of annuities heretofore made from the funds of the Seminole Nation by the United States. And the United States agree that no annuities shall be diverted from the object for which they were originally devoted by treaty stipulations, with the Seminoles, to the use of refugee and destitute Indians, other than the Seminoles or members of the Seminole Nation, after the close of the present fiscal year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six.

such other persons as may be, or may hereafter become, members of the tribe according to its laws, customs, and usages. ARTICLE 11. It is further agreed that all treaties heretofore entered into between the United States and the Seminole Nation which are inconsistent with any of the articles or provisions of this treaty shall be, and are hereby, rescinded and annulled. In testimony whereof, the said Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian affairs, Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Col. Ely S. Parker, as aforesaid, and the undersigned, persons representing the Seminole nation, have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

ARTICLE 9. The United States re-affirms and reassumes all obligations of treaty stipulations entered into before the treaty of said Seminole Nation with the so-called Confederate States, August first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, not inconsistent herewith; and further agree to renew all payments of annuities accruing by force of said treaty stipulations, from and after the close of the present fiscal year, June thirtieth, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, except as is provided in article eight, (viii.). ARTICLE 10. A quantity of land not exceeding six hundred and forty acres, to be selected according to legal subdivisions, in one body, and which shall include their improvements, is hereby granted to every religious society or denomination which has erected, or which, with the consent of the Indians, may hereafter erect, buildings within the Seminole country for missionary or educational purposes; but no land thus granted, nor the buildings which have been or may be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or otherwise disposed of except with the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior. And whenever any such land or buildings shall be so sold or disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to the support and maintenance of other similar establishments for the benefit of the Seminoles and

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

Dennis N. Cooley, [SEAL.] Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Elijah Sells, [SEAL.] Superintendent Indian Affairs. Col. Ely S. Parker, [SEAL.] Special commissioner. John Chup-co, his x mark, [SEAL.] King or head chief. Cho-cote-harjo, his x mark, [SEAL.] Counselor. Fos-harjo, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.] John F. Brown, [SEAL.] Special delegate for Southern Seminoles. In presence of— Robert Johnson, his x mark. United States interpreter for Seminole Indians. Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent for Seminoles. Ok-tus-sus-har-jo, his x mark, or Sands. Cow-e-to-me-ko, his x mark. Che-chu-chee, his x mark. Harry Island, his x mark. United States interpreter for Creek Indians. J. W. Dunn, United States Indian agent for the Creek Nation. Perry Fuller.

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

Signed by John F. Brown, special delegate for the Southern Seminoles, in presence of, this June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six— W.R. Irwin. J. M. Tebbetts. Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent. Robert Johnson, his x mark, United States interpreter.

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 Apr. 28, 1866. | 14 Stats., 769. | Ratified June 28, 1866. | Proclaimed July 10, 1866. Articles of agreement and convention between the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations of Indians, made and concluded at the City of Washington the twenty-eighth day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six, by Dennis N. Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E. S. Parker, special commissioners on the part of the United States, and Alfred Wade, Allen Wright, James Riley, and John Page, commissioners on the part of the Choctaws, and Winchester Colbert, Edmund Pickens, Holmes Colbert, Colbert Carter, and Robert H. Love, commissioners on the part of the Chickasaws. ARTICLE 1. Permanent peace and friendship are hereby established between the United States and said nations; and the Choctaws and Chickasaws do hereby bind themselves respectively to use their influence and to make every exertion to induce Indians of the plains to maintain peaceful relations with each other, with other Indians, and with the United States. ARTICLE 2. The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby covenant and agree that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all members of the particular nation, shall ever exist in said nations. ARTICLE 3. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, hereby

www.abc-clio.com

527

cede to the United States the territory west of the 98° west longitude, known as the leased district, provided that the said sum shall be invested and held by the United States, at an interest not less than five per cent., in trust for the said nations, until the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations respectively shall have made such laws, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to give all persons of African descent, resident in the said nation at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith, and their descendants, heretofore held in slavery among said nations, all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, except in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by, or belonging to, said nations respectively; and also to give to such persons who were residents as aforesaid, and their descendants, forty acres each of the land of said nations on the same terms as the Choctaws and Chickasaws, to be selected on the survey of said land, after the Choc taws and Chickasaws and Kansas Indians have made their selections as herein provided; and immediately on the enactment of such laws, rules, and regulations, the said sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the proportion of three-fourths to the former and onefourth to the latter, less such sum, at the rate of one hundred dollars per capita, as shall be sufficient to pay such persons of African descent before referred to as within ninety days after the passage of such laws, rules, and regulations shall elect to remove and actually remove from the said nations respectively. And should the said laws, rules, and regulations not be made by the legislatures of the said nations respectively, within two years from the ratification of this treaty, then the said sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall cease to be held in trust for the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and be held for the use and benefit of such of said persons of African descent as the United States shall remove from the said Territory in such manner as the United States shall deem proper,—the United States agreeing, within ninety days from the expiration of the said two years, to remove from said nations all such persons of African descent as may be willing to remove; those remaining or returning after having been removed from said nations to have no benefit of said sum of three hundred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, but shall be upon the same footing as other citizens of the United States in the said nations.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

528

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

ARTICLE 4. The said nations further agree that all negroes, not otherwise disqualified or disabled, shall be competent witnesses in all civil and criminal suits and proceedings in the Choctaw and Chickasaw courts, any law to the contrary notwithstanding; and they fully recognize the right of the freedmen to a fair remuneration on reasonable and equitable contracts for their labor, which the law should aid them to enforce. And they agree, on the part of their respective nations, that all laws shall be equal in their operation upon Choctaws, Chickasaws, and negroes, and that no distinction affecting the latter shall at any time be made, and that they shall be treated with kindness and be protected against injury; and they further agree, that while the said freedmen, now in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, remain in said nations, respectively, they shall be entitled to as much land as they may cultivate for the support of themselves and families, in cases where they do not support themselves and families by hiring, not interfering with existing improvements without the consent of the occupant, it being understood that in the event of the making of the laws, rules, and regulations aforesaid, the forty acres aforesaid shall stand in place of the land cultivated as last aforesaid. ARTICLE 5. A general amnesty of all past offences against the laws of the United States, committed before the signing of this treaty by any member of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations, is hereby declared; and the United States will especially request the States of Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas to grant the like amnesty as to all offences committed by any member of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation. And the Choctaws and Chickasaws, anxious for the restoration of kind and friendly feelings among themselves, do hereby declare an amnesty for all past offences against their respective governments, and no Indian or Indians shall be proscribed, or any act of forfeiture or confiscation passed against those who may have remained friendly to the United States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges with other members of said tribes, and all laws heretofore passed inconsistent herewith are hereby declared inoperative. The people of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations stipulate and agree to deliver up to any duly authorized agent of the United States all public property in their possession which belong to the late “so-called Confederate States of America,” or the United States, without any reservation whatever;

www.abc-clio.com

particularly ordnance, ordnance-stores, and arms of all kinds. ARTICLE 6. The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby grant a right of way through their lands to any company or companies which shall be duly authorized by Congress, or by the legislatures of said nations, respectively, and which shall, with the express consent and approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, undertake to construct a railroad through the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations from the north to the south thereof, and from the east to the west side thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the 18th article of the treaty of June twenty-second, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, which provides that for any property taken or destroyed in the construction thereof full compensation shall be made to the party or parties injured, to be ascertained and determined in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct. But such railroad company or companies, with all its or their agents and employés shall be subject to the laws of the United States relating to intercourse with Indian tribes, and also to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for that purpose. And it is also stipulated and agreed that the nation through which the road or roads aforesaid shall pass may subscribe to the stock of the particular company or companies such amount or amounts as they may be able to pay for in alternate sections of unoccupied lands for a space of six miles on each side of said road or roads, at a price per acre to be agreed upon between said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and the said company or companies, subject to the approval of the President of the United States: Provided, however, That said land, thus subscribed, shall not be sold, or demised, or occupied by any one not a citizen of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations, according to their laws and recognized usages: Provided, That the officers, servants, and employés of such companies necessary to the construction and management of said road or roads shall not be excluded from such occupancy as their respective functions may require, they being subject to the provisions of the Indian intercourse law and such rules and regulations as may be established by the Secretary of the Interior: And provided also, That the stock thus subscribed by either of said nations shall have the force and effect of a first-mortgage bond on all that part of said road, appurtenances, and equipments situated and used within said nations respectively, and shall be a per-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

petual lien on the same, and the said nations shall have the right, from year to year, to elect to receive their equitable proportion of declared dividends of profits on their said stock, or interest on the par value at the rate of six per cent. per annum. 2. And it is further declared, in this connection, that as fast as sections of twenty miles in length are completed, with the rails laid ready for use, with all water and other stations necessary to the use thereof, as a first-class road, the said company or companies shall become entitled to patents for the alternate sections aforesaid, and may proceed to dispose thereof in the manner herein provided for, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. 3. And it is further declared, also, in case of one or more of said alternate sections being occupied by any member or members of said nations respectively, so that the same cannot be transferred to the said company or companies, that the said nation or nations, respectively, may select any unoccupied section or sections, as near as circumstances will permit, to the said width of six miles on each side of said road or roads, and convey the same as an equivalent for the section or sections so occupied as aforesaid. ARTICLE 7. The Choctaws and Chickasaws agree to such legislation as Congress and the President of the United States may deem necessary for the better administration of justice and the protection of the rights of person and property within the Indian Territory: Provided, however, Such legislation shall not in anywise interfere with or annul their present tribal organization, or their respective legislatures or judiciaries, or the rights, laws, privileges, or customs of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations respectively. ARTICLE 8. The Choctaws and Chickasaws also agree that a council, consisting of delegates elected by each nation or tribe lawfully resident within the Indian Territory, may be annually convened in said Territory, to be organized as follows: 1. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the Interior, and prior to the first

www.abc-clio.com

529

session of said assembly, a census of each tribe, lawfully resident in said Territory, shall be taken, under the direction of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, by competent persons, to be appointed by him, whose compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior and paid by the United States. 2. The council shall consist of one member from each tribe or nation whose population shall exceed five hundred, and an additional member for each one thousand Indians, native or adopted, or each fraction of a thousand greater than five hundred being members of any tribe lawfully resident in said Territory, and shall be selected by the tribes or nations respectively who may assent to the establishment of said general assembly; and if none should be thus formally selected by any nation or tribe, it shall be represented in said general assembly by the chief or chiefs and head-men of said tribes, to be taken in the order of their rank as recognized in tribal usage in the number and proportions above indicated. 3. After the said census shall have been taken and completed, the superintendent of Indian affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe the number of members of said council to which they shall be entitled under the provisions of this article; and the persons so to represent the said tribes shall meet at such time and place as he shall designate, but thereafter the time and place of the sessions of the general assembly shall be determined by itself: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of thirty days, and provided that the special sessions may be called whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, the interests of said tribes shall require it. 4. The general assembly shall have power to legislate upon all subjects and matters pertaining to the intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations resident in the said Territory, the arrest and extradition of criminals escaping from one tribe to another, the administration of justice between members of the several tribes of the said Territory, and persons other than Indians and members of said tribes or nations, the construction of works of internal improvement, and the common

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

530

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

defence and safety of the nations of the said Territory. All laws enacted by said council shall take effect at the times therein provided, unless suspended by the Secretary of the Interior or the President of the United States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States; nor shall said council legislate upon matters pertaining to the legislative, judicial, or other organization, laws, or customs of the several tribes or nations, except as herein provided for. 5. Said council shall be presided over by the superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of his absence from any cause, the duties of the superintendent enumerated in this article shall be performed by such person as the Secretary of the Interior shall indicate. 6. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a secretary of said council, whose duty it shall be to keep an accurate record of all the proceedings of said council, and to transmit a true copy thereof, duly certified by the superintendent of Indian affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior immediately after the sessions of said council shall terminate. He shall be paid five hundred dollars, as an annual salary, by the United States. 7. The members of the said council shall be paid by the United States four dollars per diem while in actual attendance thereon, and four dollars mileage for every twenty miles going and returning therefrom by the most direct route, to be certified by the secretary of said council and the presiding officer. 8. The Choctaws and Chickasaws also agree that a court or courts may be established in said Territory with such jurisdiction and organization as Congress may prescribe: Provided, That the same shall not interfere with the local judiciary of either of said nations. 9. Whenever Congress shall authorize the appointment of a Delegate from said Territory, it shall be the province of said council to elect one from among the nations represented in said council. 10. And it is further agreed that the superintendent of Indian affairs shall be the executive of the said Territory, with the title of “governor

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

of the Territory of Oklahoma,” and that there shall be a secretary of the said Territory, to be appointed by the said superintendent; that the duty of the said governor, in addition to those already imposed on the superintendent of Indian affairs, shall be such as properly belong to an executive officer charged with the execution of the laws, which the said council is authorized to enact under the provisions of this treaty; and that for this purpose he shall have authority to appoint a marshal of said Territory and an interpreter; the said marshal to appoint such deputies, to be paid by fees, as may be required to aid him in the execution of his proper functions, and be the marshal of the principal court of said Territory that may be established under the provisions of this treaty. 11. And the said marshal and the said secretary shall each be entitled to a salary of five hundred dollars per annum, to be paid by the United States, and such fees in addition thereto as shall be established by said governor, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, it being understood that the said fee-lists may at any time be corrected and altered by the Secretary of the Interior, as the experience of the system proposed herein to be established shall show to be necessary, and shall in no case exceed the fees paid to marshals of the United States for similar services. The salary of the interpreter shall be five hundred dollars, to be paid in like manner by the United States. 12. And the United States agree that in the appointment of marshals and deputies, preference, qualifications being equal, shall be given to competent members of the said nations, the object being to create a laudable ambition to acquire the experience necessary for political offices of importance in the respective nations. 13. And whereas it is desired by the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations that the said council should consist of an upper and lower house, it is hereby agreed that whenever a majority of the tribes or nations represented in said council shall desire the same, or the Congress of the United States shall so prescribe, there shall be, in addition to the council now provided for, and which

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

shall then constitute the lower house, an upper house, consisting of one member from each tribe entitled to representation in the council now provided for—the relations of the two houses to each other being such as prevail in the States of the United States; each house being authorized to choose its presiding officer and clerk to perform the duties appropriate to such offices; and it being the duty, in addition, of the clerks of each house to make out and transmit to the territorial secretary fair copies of the proceedings of the respective houses immediately after their respective sessions, which copies shall be dealt with by said secretary as is now provided in the case of copies of the proceedings of the council mentioned in this act, and the said clerks shall each be entitled to the same per diem as members of the respective houses, and the presiding officers to doube that sum. ARTICLE 9. Such sums of money as have, by virtue of treaties existing in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one, been invested for the purposes of education, shall remain so invested, and the interest thereof shall be applied for the same purposes, in such manner as shall be designated by the legislative authorities of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, respectively. ARTICLE 10. The United States re-affirms all obligations arising out of treaty stipulations or acts of legislation with regard to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, entered into prior to the late rebellion, and in force at that time, not inconsistent herewith; and further agrees to renew the payment of all annuities and others moneys accruing under such treaty stipulations and acts of legislation, from and after the close of the fiscal year ending on the thirtieth of June, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six. ARTICLE 11. Whereas the land occupied by the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and described in the treaty between the United States and said nations, of June twenty-second, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, is now held by the members of said nations in common, under the provisions of the said treaty; and whereas it is believed that the holding of said land in severalty will promote the general civilization of

www.abc-clio.com

531

said nations, and tend to advance their permanent welfare and the best interests of their individual members, it is hereby agreed that, should the Choctaw and the Chickasaw people, through their respective legislative councils, agree to the survey and dividing their land on the system of the United States, the land aforesaid east of the ninety-eighth degree of west longitude shall be, in view of the arrangements herein-after mentioned, surveyed and laid off in ranges, townships, sections, and parts of sections; and that for the purpose of facilitating such surveys and for the settlement and distribution of said land as hereinafter provided, there shall be established at Boggy Depot, in the Choctaw Territory, a land-office; and that, in making the said surveys and conducting the business of the said office, including the appointment of all necessary agents and surveyors, the same system shall be pursued which has heretofore governed in respect to the public lands of the United States, it being understood that the said surveys shall be made at the cost of the United States and by their agents and surveyors, as in the case of their own public lands, and that the officers and employés shall receive the same compensation as is paid to officers and employés in the land-offices of the United States in Kansas. ARTICLE 12. The maps of said surveys shall exhibit, as far as practicable, the outlines of the actual occupancy of members of the said nations, respectively; and when they are completed, shall be returned to the said landoffice at Boggy Depot for inspection by all parties interested, when notice for ninety days shall be given of such return, in such manner as the legislative authorities of the said nations, respectively, shall prescribe, or, in the event of said authorities failing to give such notice in a reasonable time, in such manner as the register of said land-office shall prescribe, calling upon all parties interested to examine said maps to the end that errors, if any, in the location of such occupancies, may be corrected. ARTICLE 13. The notice required in the above article shall be given, not only in the Choctaw and Chicksaw Nations, but by publication in newspapers printed in the States of Mississippi and Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Alabama, to the end that such Choctaws and Chickasaws as yet remain outside of the Choctaw and Chickasaw

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

532

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

Nations, may be informed and have opportunity to exercise the rights hereby given to resident Choctaws and Chickasaws: Provided, That before any such absent Choctaw or Chickasaw shall be permitted to select for him or herself, or others, as hereinafter provided, he or she shall satisfy the register of the land-office of his or her intention, or the intention of the party for whom the selection is to be made, to become bona-fide resident in the said nation within five years from the time of selection; and should the said absentee fail to remove into said nation, and occupy and commence an improvement on the land selected within the time aforesaid, the said selection shall be cancelled, and the land shall thereafter be discharged from all claim on account thereof. ARTICLE 14. At the expiration of the ninety days aforesaid the legislative authorities of the said nations, respectively, shall have the right to select one quartersection of land in each of the counties of said nations respectively, in trust for the establishment of seats of justice therein, and also as many quarter-sections as the said legislative councils may deem proper for the permanent endowment of schools, seminaries, and colleges in said nation, provided such selection shall not embrace or interfere with any improvement in the actual occupation of any member of the particular nation without his consent; and provided the proceeds of sale of the quarter-sections selected for seats of justice shall be appropriated for the erection or improvement of public buildings in the county in which it is located. ARTICLE 15. At the expiration of the ninety days’ notice aforesaid, the selection which is to change the tenure of the land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations from a holding in common to a holding in severalty shall take place, when every Choctaw and Chickasaw shall have the right to one quarter-section of land, whether male or female, adult or minor, and if in actual possession or occupancy of land improved or cultivated by him or her, shall have a prior right to the quarter-section in which his or her improvement lies; and every infant shall have selected for him or her a quarter-section of land in such location as the father of such infant, if there be a father living, and if no father living, then the mother or guardian, and should there be neither father, mother, nor guardian,

www.abc-clio.com

then as the probate judge of the county, acting for the best interest of such infant, shall select. ARTICLE 16. Should an actual occupant of land desire, at any time prior to the commencement of the surveys aforesaid, to abandon his improvement, and select and improve other land, so as to obtain the prior right of selection thereof, he or she shall be at liberty to do so; in which event the improvement so abandoned shall be open to selection by other parties: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall authorize the multiplication of improvements so as to increase the quantity of land beyond what a party would be entitled to at the date of this treaty. ARTICLE 17. No selection to be made under this treaty shall be permitted to deprive or interfere with the continued occupation, by the missionaries established in the respective nations, of their several missionary establishments; it being the wish of the parties hereto to promote and foster an influence so largely conducive to civilization and refinement. Should any missionary who has been engaged in missionary labor for five consecutive years before the date of this treaty in the said nations, or either of them, or three consecutive years prior to the late rebellion, and who, if absent from the said nations, may desire to return, wish to select a quarter-section of land with a view to a permanent home for himself and family, he shall have the privilege of doing so, provided no selection shall include any public buildings, schools or seminary; and a quantity of land not exceeding six hundred and forty acres, to be selected according to legal subdivisions in one body, and to include their improvements, is hereby granted to every religious society or denomination which has erected, or which, with the consent of the Indians, may hereafter erect buildings within the Choctaw and Chickasaw country for missionary or educational purposes; but no land thus granted, nor the buildings which have been or may be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or otherwise disposed of, except with the consent of the legislatures of said nations respectively and approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and whenever such lands or buildings shall be sold or disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to the support and maintenance of other similar establishments for the benefit of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and such other

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

persons as may hereafter become members of their nations, according to their laws, customs, and usages. ARTICLE 18. In making a selection for children the parent shall have a prior right to select land adjacent to his own improvements or selection, provided such selection shall be made within thirty days from the time at which selections under this treaty commence. ARTICLE 19. The manner of selecting as aforesaid shall be by an entry with the register of the land-office, and all selections shall be made to conform to the legal subdivisions of the said lands as shown by the surveys aforesaid on the maps aforesaid; it being understood that nothing herein contained is to be construed to confine a party selecting to one section, but he may take contiguous parts of sections by legal subdivisions in different sections, not exceeding together a quarter-section. ARTICLE 20. Prior to any entries being made under the foregoing provisions, proof of improvements, or actual cultivation, as well as the number of persons for whom a parent or guardian, or probate judge of the county proposes to select, and of their right to select, and of his or her authority to select, for them, shall be made to the register and receiver of the land-office, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 21. In every township the sections of land numbered sixteen and thirty-six shall be reserved for the support of schools in said township: Provided, That if the same has been already occupied by a party or parties having the right to select it, or it shall be so sterile as to be unavailable, the legislative authorities of the particular nations shall have the right to select such other unoccupied sections as they may think proper. ARTICLE 22. The right of selection hereby given shall not authorize the selection of any land required by the United States as a military post, or Indian agency, not exceeding one mile square, which, when abandoned, shall revert to the nation in which the land lies.

www.abc-clio.com

533

ARTICLE 23. The register of the land-office shall inscribe in a suitable book or books, in alphabetical order, the name of every individual for whom a selection shall be made, his or her age, and a description of the land selected. ARTICLE 24. Whereas it may be difficult to give to each occupant of an improvement a quarter-section of land, or even a smaller subdivision, which shall include such improvement, in consequence of such improvements lying in towns, villages, or hamlets, the legislative authorities of the respective nations shall have power, where, in their discretion, they think it expedient, to lay off into town lots any section or part of a section so occupied, to which lots the actual occupants, being citizens of the respective nations, shall have pre-emptive right, and, upon paying into the treasury of the particular nation the price of the land, as fixed by the respective legislatures, exclusive of the value of said improvement, shall receive a conveyance thereof. Such occupant shall not be prejudiced thereby in his right to his selection elsewhere. The town lots which may be unoccupied shall be disposed of for the benefit of the particular nation, as the legislative authorities may direct from time to time. When the number of occupants of the same quarter-section shall not be such as to authorize the legislative authorities to lay out the same, or any part thereof, into town lots, they may make such regulations for the disposition thereof as they may deem proper, either by subdivision of the same, so as to accommodate the actual occupants, or by giving the right of prior choice to the first occupant in point of time, upon paying the others for their improvements, to be valued in such way as the legislative authorities shall prescribe, or otherwise. All occupants retaining their lots under this section, and desiring, in addition, to make a selection, must pay for the lots so retained, as in the case of town lots. And any Choctaw or Chickasaw who may desire to select a sectional division other than that on which his homestead is, without abandoning the latter, shall have the right to purchase the homestead sectional division at such price as the respective legislatures may prescribe. ARTICLE 25. During ninety days from the expiration of the ninety days’ notice aforesaid, the Choctaws and Chickasaws shall have the exclusive right to make selec-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

534

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

tions, as aforesaid, and at the end of that time the several parties shall be entitled to patents for their respective selections, to be issued by the President of the United States, and countersigned by the chief executive officer of the nation in which the land lies, and recorded in the records of the executive office of the particular nation; and copies of the said patents, under seal, shall be evidence in any court of law or equity. ARTICLE 26. The right here given to the Choctaws and Chickasaws, respectively, shall extend to all persons who have become citizens by adoption or intermarriage of either of said nations, or who may here-after become such. ARTICLE 27. In the event of disputes arising in regard to the rights of parties to select particular quarter-sections or other divisions of said land, or in regard to the adjustment of boundaries, so as to make them conform to legal divisions and subdivisions such disputes shall be settled by the register of the landoffice and the chief executive officer of the nation in which the land lies, in a summary way, after hearing the parties; and if said register and chief officer cannot agree, the two to call in a third party, who shall constitute a third referee, the decision of any two of whom shall be final, without appeal. ARTICLE 28. Nothing contained in any law of either of the said nations shall prevent parties entitled to make selections contiguous to each other; and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations hereby agree to repeal all laws inconsistent with this provision. ARTICLE 29. Selections made under this treaty shall, to the extent of one quarter-section, including the homestead or dwelling, be inalienable for the period of twenty-one years from the date of such selection, and upon the death of the party in possession shall descend according to the laws of the nation where the land lies; and in the event of his or her death without heirs, the said quarter-section shall escheat to and become the property of the nation. ARTICLE 30. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations will receive into their respective districts east of the ninety-

www.abc-clio.com

eighth degree of west longitude, in the proportion of one-fourth in the Chickasaw and three-fourths in the Choctaw Nation, civilized Indians from the tribes known by the general name of the Kansas Indians, being Indians to the north of the Indian Territory, not exceeding ten thousand in number, who shall have in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, respectively, the same rights as the Choctaws and Chickasaws, of whom they shall be the fellow-citizens, governed by the same laws, and enjoying the same privileges, with the exception of the right to participate in the Choctaw and Chickasaw annuities and other moneys, and in the public domain, should the same, or the proceeds thereof, be divided per capita among the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and among others the right to select land as herein provided for Choctaws and Chickasaws, after the expiration of the ninety days during which the selections of land are to be made, as aforesaid, by said Choctaws and Chickasaws; and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations pledge themselves to treat the said Kansas Indians in all respects with kindness and forbearance, aiding them in good faith to establish themselves in their new homes, and to respect all their customs and usages not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations respectively. In making selections after the advent of the Indians and the actual occupancy of land in said nation, such occupancy shall have the same effect in their behalf as the occupancies of Choctaws and Chickasaws; and after the said Choctaws and Chickasaws have made their selections as aforesaid, the said persons of African descent mentioned in the third article of the treaty, shall make their selections as therein provided, in the event of the making of the laws, rules, and regulations aforesaid, after the expiration of ninety days from the date at which the Kansas Indians are to make their selections as therein provided, and the actual occupancy of such persons of African descent shall have the same effect in their behalf as the occupancies of the Choctaws and Chickasaws. ARTICLE 31. And whereas some time must necessarily elapse before the surveys, maps, and selections herein provided for can be completed so as to permit the said Kansas Indians to make their selections in their order, during which time the United States may desire to remove the said Indians from their present abiding places, it is hereby agreed that the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

said Indians may at once come into the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, settling themselves temporarily as citizens of the said nations, respectively, upon such land as suits them and is not already occupied. ARTICLE 32. At the expiration of two years, or sooner, if the President of the United States shall so direct, from the completion of the surveys and maps aforesaid, the officers of the land-offices aforesaid shall deliver to the executive departments of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, respectively, all such documents as may be necessary to elucidate the land-title as settled according to this treaty, and forward copies thereof, with the field-notes, records, and other papers pertaining to said titles, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office; and thereafter grants of land and patents therefor shall be issued in such manner as the legislative authorities of said nations may provide for all the unselected portions of the Choctaw and Chickasaw districts as defined by the treaty of June twenty-second, eighteen hundred and fifty-five. ARTICLE 33. All lands selected as herein provided shall thereafter be held in severalty by the respective parties, and the unselected land shall be the common property of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, in their corporate capacities, subject to the joint control of their legislative authorities. ARTICLE 34. Should any Choctaw or Chickasaw be prevented from selecting for him or herself during the ninety days aforesaid, the failure to do so shall not authorize another to select the quarter-section containing his improvement, but he may at any time make his selection thereof, subject to having his boundaries made to conform to legal divisions as aforesaid. ARTICLE 35. Should the selections aforesaid not be made before the transfer of the land records to the executive authorities of said nations, respectively, they shall be made according to such regulations as the legislative authorities of the two nations, respectively, may prescribe, to the end that full justice and equity may be done to the citizens of the respective territories.

www.abc-clio.com

535

ARTICLE 36. Should any land that has been selected under the provisions of this treaty be abandoned and left uncultivated for the space of seven years by the party selecting the same, or his heirs, except in the case of infants under the age of twenty-one years, or married women, or persons non compos mentis, the legislative authorities of the nation where such land lies may either rent the same for the benefit of those interested, or dispose of the same otherwise for their benefit, and may pass all laws necessary to give effect to this provision. ARTICLE 37. In consideration of the right of selection hereinbefore accorded to certain Indians other than the Choctaws and Chickasaws, the United States agree to pay to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, out of the funds of Indians removing into said nations respectively, under the provisions of this treaty, such sum as may be fixed by the legislatures of said nations, not exceeding one dollar per acre, to be divided between the said nations in the proportion of onefourth to the Chickasaw Nation and three-fourths to the Choctaw Nation, with the understanding that at the expiration of twelve months the actual number of said immigrating Indians shall be ascertained, and the amount paid that may be actually due at the rate aforesaid; and should still further immigrations take place from among said Kansas Indians, still further payments shall be made accordingly from time to time. ARTICLE 38. Every white person who, having married a Choctaw or Chickasaw, resides in the said Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation, or who has been adopted by the legislative authorities, is to be deemed a member of said nation, and shall be subject to the laws of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations according to his domicile, and to prosecution and trial before their tribunals, and to punishment according to their laws in all respects as though he was a native Choctaw or Chickasaw. ARTICLE 39. No person shall expose goods or other articles for sale as a trader without a permit of the legislative authorities of the nation he may propose to trade in; but no license shall be required to authorize any member of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations to trade in the Choctaw or Chickasaw country who is

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

536

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

authorized by the proper authority of the nation, nor to authorize Choctaws or Chickasaws to sell flour, meal, meat, fruit, and other provisions, stock, wagons, agricultural implements, or tools brought from the United States into the said country. ARTICLE 40. All restrictions contained in any treaty heretofore made, or in any regulation of the United States upon the sale or other disposition of personal chattel property by Choctaws or Chickasaws are hereby removed. ARTICLE 41. All persons who are members of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations, and are not otherwise disqualified or disabled, shall hereafter be competent witnesses in all civil and criminal suits and proceedings in any courts of the United States, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. ARTICLE 42. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations shall deliver up persons accused of crimes against the United States who may be found within their respective limits on the requisition of the governor of any State for a crime committed against the laws of said State, and upon the requisition of the judge of the district court of the United States for the district within which the crime was committed. ARTICLE 43. The United States promise and agree that no white person, except officers, agents, and employés of the Government, and of any internal improvement company, or persons travelling through, or temporarily sojourning in, the said nations, or either of them, shall be permitted to go into said Territory, unless formally incorporated and naturalized by the joint action of the authorities of both nations into one of the said nations of Choctaws and Chickasaws, according to their laws, customs, or usages; but this article is not to be construed to affect parties heretofore adopted, or to prevent the employment temporarily of white persons who are teachers, mechanics, or skilled in agriculture, or to prevent the legislative authorities of the respective nations from authorizing such works of internal improvement as they may deem essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community, or be taken to interfere with or invalidate any action which has heretofore been had in this connection by either of the said nations.

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 44. Post-offices shall be established and maintained by the United States at convenient places in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, to and from which the mails shall be carried at reasonable intervals, at the rates of postage prevailing in the United States. ARTICLE 45. All the rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore possessed by said nations or individuals thereof, or to which they were entitled under the treaties and legislation heretofore made and had in connection with them, shall be, and are hereby declared to be, in full force, so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this treaty. ARTICLE 46. Of the moneys stipulated to be paid to the Choctaws and Chickasaws under this treaty for the cession of the leased district, and the admission of the Kansas Indians among them, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars shall be advanced and paid to the Choctaws, and fifty thousand dollars to the Chickasaws, through their respective treasurers, as soon as practicable after the ratification of this treaty, to be repaid out of said moneys or any other moneys of said nations in the hands of the United States; the residue, not affected by any provisions of this treaty, to remain in the Treasury of the United States at an annual interest of five per cent., no part of which shall be paid out as annuity, but shall be annually paid to the treasurer of said nations, respectively, to be regularly and judiciously applied, under the direction of their respective legislative councils, to the support of their government, the purposes of education, and such other objects as may be best calculated to promote and advance the welfare and happiness of said nations and their people respectively. As soon as practicable after the lands shall have been surveyed and assigned to the Choctaws and Chickasaws in severalty as herein provided, upon application of their respective legislative councils, and with the assent of the President of the United States, all the annuities and funds invested and held in trust by the United States for the benefit of said nations respectively shall be capitalized or converted into money, as the case may be; and the aggregate amounts thereof belonging to each nation shall be equally divided and paid per capita to the individuals thereof respectively, to aid and assist them in improving their homesteads and increasing or acquiring flocks and herds, and thus encourage

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

them to make proper efforts to maintain successfully the new relations which the holding of their lands in severalty will involve: Provided, nevertheless, That there shall be retained by the United States such sum as the President shall deem sufficient of the said moneys to be invested, that the interest thereon may be sufficient to defray the expenses of the government of said nations respectively, together with a judicious system of education, until these objects can be provided for by a proper system of taxation; and whenever this shall be done to the satisfaction of the President of the United States, the moneys so retained shall be divided in the manner and for the purpose above mentioned. ARTICLE 48. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty there shall be paid, out of the funds of the Choctaws and Chickasaws in the hands of the United States, twenty-five thousand dollars to the Choctaw and twenty-five thousand dollars to the Chickasaw commissioners, to enable them to discharge obligations incurred by them for various incidental and other expenses to which they have been subjected, and for which they are now indebted. ARTICLE 49. And it is further agreed that a commission, to consist of a person or persons to be appointed by the President of the United States, not exceeding three, shall be appointed immediately on the ratification of this treaty, who shall take into consideration and determine the claim of such Choctaws and Chickasaws as allege that they have been driven during the late rebellion from their homes in the Choctaw [and Chickasaw] Nations on account of their adhesion to the United States, for damages, with power to make such award as may be consistent with equity and good conscience, taking into view all circumstances, whose report, when ratified by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be final, and authorize the payment of the amount from any moneys of said nations in the hands of the United States as the said commission may award. ARTICLE 50. Whereas Joseph G. Heald and Reuben Wright, of Massachusetts, were licensed traders in the Choctaw country at the commencement of the rebellion, and claim to have sustained large losses on account of said rebellion, by the use of their property by said

www.abc-clio.com

537

nation, and that large sums of money are due them for goods and property taken, or sold to the members of said nation, and money advanced to said nation; and whereas other loyal citizens of the United States may have just claims of the same character: It is hereby agreed and stipulated that the commission provided for in the preceding article shall investigate said claims, and fully examine the same; and such sum or sums of money as shall by the report of said commission, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, be found due to such persons, not exceeding ninety thousand dollars, shall be paid by the United States to the persons entitled thereto, out of any money belonging to said nation in the possession of the United States: Provided, That no claim for goods or property of any kind shall be allowed or paid, in whole or part, which shall have been used by said nation or any member thereof in aid of the rebellion, with the consent of said claimants: Provided also, That if the aggregate of said claims thus allowed and approved shall exceed said sum of ninety thousand dollars, then that sum shall be applied pro rata in payment of the claims so allowed. ARTICLE 51. It is further agreed that all treaties and parts of treaties inconsistent herewith be, and the same are hereby, declared null and void. In testimony whereof, the said Dennis N. Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E. S. Parker, commissioners in behalf of the United States, and the said commissioners on behalf of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. D. N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, [SEAL.] Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs, [SEAL.] E. S. Parker, special commissioner, [SEAL.] Commissioners for United States. Alfred Wade, [SEAL.] Allen Wright, [SEAL.] James Riley, [SEAL.] John Page, [SEAL.] Choctaw commissioners. Winchester Colbert, [SEAL.] Edmund (his x mark) Pickens, [SEAL.]

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

538

Treaty with the Creeks, 1866

Holmes Colbert, [SEAL.] Colbert Carter, [SEAL.] Robert H. Love, [SEAL.] Chickasaw commissioners. Campbell Leflore, Secretary of Choctaw delegation. E. S. Mitchell, Secretary of Chickasaw delegation. In presence of— Jno. H. B. Latrobe, P. P. Pitchlynn, Principal chief Choctaws. Douglas H. Cooper. J. Harlan. Charles E. Mix.

Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 June 14, 1866. | 14 Stats., 785. | Ratified July 19, 1866. | Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866. Treaty of cession and indemnity concluded at the city of Washington on the fourteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, by and between the United States, represented by Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Elija Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the southern superintendency, and Col. Ely S. Parker, special commissioner, and the Creek Nation of Indians, represented by Ok-tars-sars-harjo, or Sands; Cow-e-to-me-co and Che-chu-chee, delegates at large, and D. N. McIntosh and James Smith, special delegates of the Southern Creeks. PREAMBLE. Whereas existing treaties between the United States and the Creek Nation have become insufficient to meet their mutual necessities; and whereas the Creeks made a treaty with the so-called Confederate States, on the tenth of July, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, whereby they ignored their allegiance to the United States, and unsettled the treaty relations existing between the Creeks and the United States, and did so render themselves liable to forfeit to the United States all benefits and advantages enjoyed by them in lands, annuities, protection, and immunities, including their lands and other property held by grant or gift from the United States; and whereas in view of said liabilities the

www.abc-clio.com

United States require of the Creeks a portion of their land whereon to settle other Indians; and whereas a treaty of peace and amity was entered into between the United States and the Creeks and other tribes at Fort Smith, September thirteenth [tenth,] eighteen hundred and sixty-five, whereby the Creeks revoked, cancelled, and repudiated the aforesaid treaty made with the so-called Confederate States; and whereas the United States, through its commissioners, in said treaty of peace and amity, promised to enter into treaty with the Creeks to arrange and settle all questions relating to and growing out of said treaty with the so-called Confederate States: Now, therefore, the United States, by its commissioners, and the above-named delegates of the Creek Nation, the day and year above mentioned, mutually stipulate and agree, on behalf of the respective parties, as follows, to wit: ARTICLE 1. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the parties to this treaty, and the Creeks bind themselves to remain firm allies and friends of the United States, and never to take up arms against the United States, but always faithfully to aid in putting down its enemies. They also agree to remain at peace with all other Indian tribes; and, in return, the United States guarantees them quiet possession of their country, and protection against hostilities on the part of other tribes. In the event of hostilites, the United States agree that the tribe commencing and prosecuting the same shall, as far as may be practicable, make just reparation therefor. To insure this protection, the Creeks agree to a military occupation of their country, at any time, by the United States, and the United States agree to station and continue in said country from time to time, at its own expense, such force as may be necessary for that purpose. A general amnesty of all past offenses against the laws of the United States, committed by any member of the Creek Nation, is hereby declared. And the Creeks, anxious for the restoration of kind and friendly feelings among themselves, do hereby declare an amnesty for all past offenses against their government, and no Indian or Indians shall be proscribed, or any act of forfeiture or confiscation passed against those who have remained friendly to, or taken up arms against, the United States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges with other members of said tribe, and all laws heretofore passed inconsistent herewith are hereby declared inoperative.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Creeks, 1866

ARTICLE 2. The Creeks hereby covenant and agree that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted in accordance with laws applicable to all members of said tribe, shall ever exist in said nation; and inasmuch as there are among the Creeks many persons of African descent, who have no interest in the soil, it is stipulated that hereafter these persons lawfully residing in said Creek country under their laws and usages, or who have been thus residing in said country, and may return within one year from the ratification of this treaty, and their descendants and such others of the same race as may be permitted by the laws of the said nation to settle within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as citizens [thereof,] shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native citizens, including an equal interest in the soil and national funds, and the laws of the said nation shall be equally binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons, and all others. This agreement, a copy of which has been obtained from the report of the negotiating commissioners, found accompanying the Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1865, is set forth in the Appendix to this Compilation, post, p. 1050. soever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe. ARTICLE 3. In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon, the Creeks hereby cede and convey to the United States, to be sold to and used as homes for such other civilized Indians as the United States may choose to settle thereon, the west half of their entire domain, to be divided by a line running north and south; the eastern half of said Creek lands, being retained by them, shall, except as herein otherwise stipulated, be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation; and in consideration of said cession of the west half of their lands, estimated to contain three millions two hundred and fifty thousand five hundred and sixty acres, the United States agree to pay the sum of thirty (30) cents per acre, amounting to nine hundred and seventy-five thousand one hundred and sixty-eight dollars, in the manner hereinafter provided, to wit: two hundred thousand dollars shall be paid per capita in money, unless otherwise directed by the President of the United States, upon the ratification of this treaty, to enable the Creeks to

www.abc-clio.com

539

occupy, restore, and improve their farms, and to make their nation independent and self-sustaining, and to pay the damages sustained by the mission schools on the North Fork and the Arkansas Rivers, not to exceed two thousand dollars, and to pay the delegates such per diem as the agent and Creek council may agree upon, as a just and fair compensation, all of which shall be distributed for that purpose by the agent, with the advice of the Creek council, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. One hundred thousand dollars shall be paid in money and divided to soldiers that enlisted in the Federal Army and the loyal refugee Indians and freedmen who were driven from their homes by the rebel forces, to reimburse them in proportion to their respective losses; four hundred thousand dollars be paid in money and divided per capita to said Creek Nation, unless otherwise directed by the President of the United States, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, as the same may accrue from the sale of land to other Indians. The United States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner and for such purposes as the Secretary of the Interior may direct, interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum from the date of the ratification of this treaty, on the amount hereinbefore agreed upon for said ceded lands, after deducting the said two hundred thousand dollars; the residue, two hundred and seventy-five thousand one hundred and sixtyeight dollars, shall remain in the Treasury of the United States, and the interest thereon, at the rate of five per centum per annum, be annually paid to said Creeks as above stipulated. ARTICLE 4. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the United States agree to ascertain the amount due the respective soldiers who enlisted in the Federal Army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to their several losses, and to pay the amount awarded each, in the following manner, to wit: A census of the Creeks shall be taken by the agent of the United States for said nation, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and a roll of the names of all soldiers that enlisted in the Federal Army, loyal refugee Indians, and freedmen, be made by him. The superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern superintendency and the agent of the United States for the Creek Nation shall proceed to investigate and determine from said roll the amounts due the respective refugee Indians, and shall transmit to the Commissioner of Indian affairs for his approval, and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

540

Treaty with the Creeks, 1866

that of the Secretary of the Interior, their awards, together with the reasons therefor. In case the awards so made shall be duly approved, said awards shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of said lands within one year from the ratification of this treaty, or so soon as said amount of one hundred thousand ($100,000) dollars can be raised from the sale of said land to other Indians. ARTICLE 5. The Creek Nation hereby grant a right of way through their lands, to the Choctaw and Chickasaw country, to any company which shall be duly authorized by Congress, and shall, with the express consent and approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, undertake to construct a railroad from any point north of to any point in or south of the Creek country, and likewise from any point on their eastern to their western or southern boundary, but said railroad company, together with all its agents and employés, shall be subject to the laws of the United States relating to intercourse with Indian tribes, and also to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for that purpose, and the Creeks agree to sell to the United States, or any company duly authorized as aforesaid, such lands not legally owned or occupied by a member or members of the Creek Nation, lying along the line of said contemplated railroad, not exceeding on each side thereof a belt or strip of land three miles in width, at such price per acre as may be eventually agreed upon between said Creek Nation and the party or parties building said road, subject to the approval of the President of the United States: Provided, however, That said land thus sold shall not be reconveyed, leased, or rented to, or be occupied by any one not a citizen of the Creek Nation, according to its laws and recognized usages: Provided, also, That officers, servants, and employés of said railroad necessary to its construction and management, shall not be excluded from such necessary occupancy, they being subject to the provisions of the Indian intercourse law and such rules and regulations as may be established by the Secretary of the Interior, nor shall any conveyance of any of said lands be made to the party building and managing said road until its completion as a firstclass railroad, and its acceptance as such by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 6. [Stricken out.]

www.abc-clio.com

ARTICLE 7. The Creeks hereby agree that the Seminole tribe of Indians may sell and convey to the United States all or any portion of the Seminole lands, upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon by and between the Seminoles and the United States. ARTICLE 8. It is agreed that the Secretary of the Interior forthwith cause the line dividing the Creek country, as provided for by the terms of the sale of Creek lands to the United States in article third of this treaty, to be accurately surveyed under the direction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the expenses of which survey shall be paid by the United States. ARTICLE 9. Inasmuch as the agency buildings of the Creek tribe have been destroyed during the late war, it is further agreed that the United States shall at their own expense, not exceeding ten thousand dollars, cause to be erected suitable agency buildings, the sites whereof shall be selected by the agent of said tribe, in the reduced Creek reservation, under the direction of the superintendent of Indian affairs. In consideration whereof, the Creeks hereby cede and relinquish to the United States one section of their lands, to be designated and selected by their agent, under the direction of the superintendent of Indian affairs, upon which said agency buildings shall be erected, which section of land shall revert to the Creek nation when said agency buildings are no longer used by the United States, upon said nation paying a fair and reasonable value for said buildings at the time vacated. ARTICLE 10. The Creeks agree to such legislation as Congress and the President of the United States may deem necessary for the better administration of justice and the protection of the rights of person and property within the Indian territory: Provided, however, [That] said legislation shall not in any manner interfere with or annul their present tribal organization, rights, laws, privileges, and customs. The Creeks also agree that a general council, consisting of delegates elected by each nation or tribe lawfully resident within the Indian territory, may be annually convened in said territory, which council shall be organized in such manner and possess such powers as are hereinafter described.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Creeks, 1866

First. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the Interior, and prior to the first session of said council, a census, or enumeration of each tribe lawfully resident in said territory, shall be taken under the direction of the superintendent of Indian affairs, who for that purpose is hereby authorized to designate and appoint competent persons, whose compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, and paid by the United States. Second. The first general council shall consist of one member from each tribe, and an additional member from each one thousand Indians, or each fraction of a thousand greater than five hundred, being members of any tribe lawfully resident in said territory, and shall be selected by said tribes respectively, who may assent to the establishment of said general council, and if none should be thus formerly selected by any nation or tribe, the said nation or tribe shall be represented in said general council by the chief or chiefs and head men of said tribe, to be taken in the order of their rank as recognized in tribal usage, in the same number and proportion as above indicated. After the said census shall have been taken and completed, the superintendent of Indian affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe the number of members of said council to which they shall be entitled under the provisions of this article, and the persons entitled to so represent said tribes shall meet at such time and place as he shall appoint, but thereafter the time and place of the sessions of said council shall be determined by its action: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of thirty days, and provided that special sessions of said council may be called whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, the interest of said tribe shall require. Third. Said general council shall have power to legislate upon all rightful subjects and matters pertaining to the intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations resident in said territory, the arrest and extradition of criminals and offenders escaping from one tribe to another, the administration of justice between members of the several tribes of said territory, and persons other than Indians and members of said tribes or nations, the construction of works of internal improvement, and the common defence and safety of the nations of said territory. All laws enacted by said general council shall take

www.abc-clio.com

541

effect at such time as may therein be provided, unless suspended by direction of the Secretary of the Interior or the President of the United States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States, nor shall said council legislate upon matters pertaining to the organization, laws, or customs of the several tribes, except as herein provided for. Fourth. Said council shall be presided over by the superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of his absence from any cause, the duties of said superintendent enumerated in this article shall be performed by such person as the Secretary of the Interior may direct. Fifth. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a secretary of said council, whose duty it shall be to keep an accurate record of all the proceedings of said council, and who shall transmit a true copy of all such proceedings, duly certified by the superintendent of Indian affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior immediately after the sessions of said council shall terminate. He shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States an annual salary of five hundred dollars. Sixth. The members of said council shall be paid by the United States the sum of four dollars per diem during the time actually in attendance on the sessions of said council, and at the rate of four dollars for every twenty miles necessary[il]ly traveled by them in going to and returning to their homes respectively, from said council, to be certified by the secretary of said council and the superintendent of Indian affairs. Seventh. The Creeks also agree that a court or courts may be established in said territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner as Congress may by law provide. ARTICLE 11. The stipulations of this treaty are to be a full settlement of all claims of said Creek Nation for damages and losses of every kind growing out of the late rebellion and all expenditures by the United States of annuities in clothing and feeding refugee and destitute Indians since the diversion of annuities for that purpose consequent upon the late war with the socalled Confederate States; and the Creeks hereby rat-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

542

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

ify and confirm all such diversions of annuities heretofore made from the funds of the Creek Nation by the United States, and the United States agree that no annuities shall be diverted from the objects for which they were originally devoted by treaty stipulations with the Creeks, to the use of refugee and destitute Indians other than the Creeks or members of the Creek Nation after the close of the present fiscal year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six. ARTICLE 12. The United States re-affirms and re-assumes all obligations of treaty stipulations with the Creek Nation entered into before the treaty of said Creek Nation with the so-called Confederate States, July tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, not inconsistent herewith; and further agrees to renew all payments accruing by force of said treaty stipulations from and after the close of the present fiscal year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, except as is provided in article eleventh. ARTICLE 13. A quantity of one hundred and sixty acres, to be selected according to legal subdivision, in one body, and to include their improvements, is hereby granted to every religious society or denomination, which has erected, or which, with the consent of the Indians, may hereafter erect, buildings within the Creek country for missionary or educational purposes; but no land thus granted, nor the buildings which have been or may be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or otherwise disposed of, except with the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and whenever any such lands or buildings shall be so sold or disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to the support and maintenance of other similar establishments for the benefit of the Creeks and such other persons as may be or may hereafter become members of the tribe according to its laws, customs, and usages; and if at any time said improvements shall be abandoned for one year for missionary or educational purposes, all the rights herein granted for missionary and educational purposes shall revert to the said Creek Nation. ARTICLE 14. It is further agreed that all treaties heretofore entered into between the United States and the Creek Nation which are inconsistent with any of the articles or

www.abc-clio.com

provisions of this treaty shall be, and are hereby, rescinded and annulled; and it is further agreed that ten thousand dollars shall be paid by the United States, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to pay the expenses incurred in negotiating the foregoing treaty. In testimony whereof, we, the commissioners representing the United States and the delegates representing the Creek nation, have hereunto set our hands and seals at the place and on the day and year above written. D. N. Cooley, Commissioner Indian Affairs. [SEAL.] Elijah Sells, Superintendent Indian Affairs. [SEAL.] Ok-ta-has Harjo, his x mark. [SEAL.] Cow Mikko, his x mark. [SEAL.] Cotch-cho-chee, his x mark. [SEAL.] D. N. McIntosh. [SEAL.] James M. C. Smith. [SEAL.] In the presence of— J. W. Dunn, United States Indian agent. J. Harlan, United States Indian agent. Charles E. Mix. J. M. Tebbetts. Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent. John B. Sanborn. John F. Brown, Seminole delegate. John Chupco, his x mark. Fos-har-jo, his x mark. Cho-cote-huga, his x mark. R. Fields, Cherokee delegate. Douglas H. Cooper. Wm. Penn Adair. Harry Island, his x mark, United States interpreter, Creek Nation. Suludin Watie.

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 July 19, 1866. | 14 Stats., 799. | Ratified July 27, 1866. | Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866. Articles of agreement and convention at the city of Washington on the nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtysix, between the United States, represented by Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, [and]

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the southern superintendency, and the Cherokee Nation of Indians, represented by its delegates, James McDaniel, Smith Christie, White Catcher, S. H. Benge, J. B. Jones, and Daniel H. Ross—John Ross, principal chief of the Cherokees, being too unwell to join in these negotiations. PREAMBLE. Whereas existing treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation are deemed to be insufficient, the said contracting parties agree as follows, viz: ARTICLE 1. The pretended treaty made with the so-called Confederate States by the Cherokee Nation on the seventh day of October, eighteen hundred and sixtyone, and repudiated by the national council of the Cherokee Nation on the eighteenth day of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, is hereby declared to be void. ARTICLE 2. Amnesty is hereby declared by the United States and the Cherokee Nation for all crimes and misdemeanors committed by one Cherokee on the person or property of another Cherokee, or of a citizen of the United States, prior to the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-six; and no right of action arising out of wrongs committed in aid or in the suppression of the rebellion shall be prosecuted or maintained in the courts of the United States or in the courts of the Cherokee Nation. But the Cherokee Nation stipulate and agree to deliver up to the United States, or their duly authorized agent, any or all public property, particularly ordnance, ordnance stores, arms of all kinds, and quartermaster’s stores, in their possession or control, which belonged to the United States or the so-called Confederate States, without any reservation. ARTICLE 3. The confiscation laws of the Cherokee Nation shall be repealed, and the same, and all sales of farms, and improvements on real estate, made or pretended to be made in pursuance thereof, are hereby agreed and declared to be null and void, and the former owners of such property so sold, their heirs or assigns, shall have the right peaceably to re-occupy their homes, and the purchaser under the confiscation laws, or his heirs or assigns, shall be repaid by

www.abc-clio.com

543

the treasurer of the Cherokee Nation from the national funds, the money paid for said property and the cost of permanent improvements on such real estate, made thereon since the confiscation sale; the cost of such improvements to be fixed by a commission, to be composed of one person designated by the Secretary of the Interior and one by the principal chief of the nation, which two may appoint a third in cases of disagreement, which cost so fixed shall be refunded to the national treasurer by the returning Cherokees within three years from the ratification hereof. ARTICLE 4. All the Cherokees and freed persons who were formerly slaves to any Cherokee, and all free negroes not having been such slaves, who resided in the Cherokee Nation prior to June first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, who may within two years elect not to reside northeast of the Arkansas River and southeast of Grand River, shall have the right to settle in and occupy the Canadian district southwest of the Arkansas River, and also all that tract of country lying northwest of Grand River, and bounded on the southeast by Grand River and west by the Creek reservation to the northeast corner thereof; from thence west on the north line of the Creek reservation to the ninety-sixth degree of west longitude; and thence north on said line of longitude so far that a line due east to Grand River will include a quantity of land equal to one hundred and sixty acres for each person who may so elect to reside in the territory above-described in this article: Provided, That that part of said district north of the Arkansas River shall not be set apart until it shall be found that the Canadian district is not sufficiently large to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each person desiring to obtain settlement under the provisions of this article. ARTICLE 5. The inhabitants electing to reside in the district described in the preceding article shall have the right to elect all their local officers and judges, and the number of delegates to which by their numbers they may be entitled in any general council to be established in the Indian Territory under the provisions of this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all their local affairs, and to establish all necessary police regulations and rules for the administration of justice in said district, not inconsistent with the constitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

544

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided also, That if any such police regulations or rules be adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in said district, or in any other district of the nation, discriminating against the citizens of other districts, are prohibited, and shall be void. ARTICLE 6. The inhabitants of the said district hereinbefore described shall be entitled to representation according to numbers in the national council, and all laws of the Cherokee Nation shall be uniform throughout said nation. And should any such law, either in its provisions or in the manner of its enforcement, in the opinion of the President of the United States, operate unjustly or injuriously in said district, he is hereby authorized and empowered to correct such evil, and to adopt the means necessary to secure the impartial administration of justice, as well as a fair and equitable application and expenditure of the national funds as between the people of this and of every other district in said nation. ARTICLE 7. The United States court to be created in the Indian Territory; and until such court is created therein, the United States district court, the nearest to the Cherokee Nation, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all causes, civil and criminal, wherein an inhabitant of the district hereinbefore described shall be a party, and where an inhabitant outside of said district, in the Cherokee Nation, shall be the other party, as plaintiff or defendant in a civil cause, or shall be defendant or prosecutor in a criminal case, and all process issued in said district by any officer of the Cherokee Nation, to be executed on an inhabitant residing outside of said district, and all process issued by any officer of the Cherokee Nation outside of said district, to be executed on an inhabitant residing in said district, shall be to all intents and purposes null and void, unless indorsed by the district judge for the district where such process is to be served, and said person, so arrested, shall be held in custody by the officer so arresting him, until he shall

www.abc-clio.com

be delivered over to the United States marshal, or consent to be tried by the Cherokee court: Provided, That any or all the provisions of this treaty, which make any distinction in rights and remedies between the citizens of any district and the citizens of the rest of the nation, shall be abrogated whenever the President shall have ascertained, by an election duly ordered by him, that a majority of the voters of such district desire them to be abrogated, and he shall have declared such abrogation: And provided further, That no law or regulation, to be hereafter enacted within said Cherokee Nation or any district thereof, prescribing a penalty for its violation, shall take effect or be enforced until after ninety days from the date of its promulgation, either by publication in one or more newspapers of general circulation in said Cherokee Nation, or by posting up copies thereof in the Cherokee and English languages in each district where the same is to take effect, at the usual place of holding district courts. ARTICLE 8. No license to trade in goods, wares, or merchandise merchandise shall be granted by the United States to trade in the Cherokee Nation, unless approved by the Cherokee national council, except in the Canadian district, and such other district north of Arkansas River and west of Grand River occupied by the so-called southern Cherokees, as provided in Article 4 of this treaty. ARTICLE 9. The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all the members of said tribe alike. They further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

ARTICLE 10. Every Cherokee and freed person resident in the Cherokee Nation shall have the right to sell any products of his farm, including his or her live stock, or any merchandise or manufactured products, and to ship and drive the same to market without restraint, paying any tax thereon which is now or may be levied by the United States on the quantity sold outside of the Indian Territory. ARTICLE 11. The Cherokee Nation hereby grant a right of way not exceeding two hundred feet wide, except at stations, switches, waterstations, or crossing of rivers, where more may be indispensable to the full enjoyment of the franchise herein granted, and then only two hundred additional feet shall be taken, and only for such length as may be absolutely necessary, through all their lands, to any company or corporation which shall be duly authorized by Congress to construct a railroad from any point north to any point south, and from any point east to any point west of, and which may pass through, the Cherokee Nation. Said company or corporation, and their employés and laborers, while constructing and repairing the same, and in operating said road or roads, including all necessary agents on the line, at stations, switches, water tanks, and all others necessary to the successful operation of a railroad, shall be protected in the discharge of their duties, and at all times subject to the Indian intercourse laws, now or which may hereafter be enacted and be in force in the Cherokee Nation. ARTICLE 12. The Cherokees agree that a general council, consisting of delegates elected by each nation or tribe lawfully residing within the Indian Territory, may be annually convened in said Territory, which council shall be organized in such manner and possess such powers as hereinafter prescribed. First. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the Interior, and prior to the first session of said council, a census or enumeration of each tribe lawfully resident in said Territory shall be taken under the direction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who for that purpose is hereby authorized to designate and appoint competent persons, whose compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, and paid by the United States.

www.abc-clio.com

545

Second. The first general council shall consist of one member from each tribe, and an additional member for each one thousand Indians, or each fraction of a thousand greater than five hundred, being members of any tribe lawfully resident in said Territory, and shall be selected by said tribes respectively, who may assent to the establishment of said general council; and if none should be thus formally selected by any nation or tribe so assenting, the said nation or tribe shall be represented in said general council by the chief or chiefs and headmen of said tribes, to be taken in the order of their rank as recognized in tribal usage, in the same number and proportion as above indicated. After the said census shall have been taken and completed, the superintendent of Indian affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe assenting to the establishment of such council the number of members of such council to which they shall be entitled under the provisions of this article, and the persons entitled to represent said tribes shall meet at such time and place as he shall approve; but thereafter the time and place of the sessions of said council shall be determined by its action: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of thirty days: And provided, That special sessions of said council may be called by the Secretary of the Interior whenever in his judgment the interest of said tribes shall require such special session. Third. Said general council shall have power to legislate upon matters pertaining to the intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations and colonies of freedmen resident in said Territory; the arrest and extradition of criminals and offenders escaping from one tribe to another, or into any community of freedmen; the administration of justice between members of different tribes of said Territory and persons other than Indians and members of said tribes or nations; and the common defence and safety of the nations of said Territory. All laws enacted by such council shall take effect at such time as may therein be provided, unless suspended by direction of the President of the United States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or laws of Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United States. Nor shall said council legislate upon matters other than those above indicated: Provided, however, That the legislative power of such general

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

546

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

council may be enlarged by the consent of the national council of each nation or tribe assenting to its establishment, with the approval of the President of the United States. Fourth. Said council shall be presided over by such person as may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior. Fifth. The council shall elect a secretary, whose duty it shall be to keep an accurate record of all the proceedings of said council, and who shall transmit a true copy of all such proceedings, duly certified by the presiding officer of such council, to the Secretary of the Interior, and to each tribe or nation represented in said council, immediately after the sessions of said council shall terminate. He shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States an annual salary of five hundred dollars. Sixth. The members of said council shall be paid by the United States the sum of four dollars per diem during the term actually in attendance on the sessions of said council, and at the rate of four dollars for every twenty miles necessarily traveled by them in going from and returning to their homes, respectively, from said council, to be certified by the secretary and president of the said council. ARTICLE 13. The Cherokees also agree that a court or courts may be established by the United States in said Territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That the judicial tribunals of the nation shall be allowed to retain exclusive jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising within their country in which members of the nation, by nativity or adoption, shall be the only parties, or where the cause of action shall arise in the Cherokee Nation, except as otherwise provided in this treaty. ARTICLE 14. The right to the use and occupancy of a quantity of land not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, to be selected according to legal subdivisions in one body, and to include their improvements, and not including the improvements of any member of the Cherokee Nation, is hereby granted to every society or denomination which has erected, or which with the consent of the national council may hereafter

www.abc-clio.com

erect, buildings within the Cherokee country for missionary or educational purposes. But no land thus granted, nor buildings which have been or may be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or [o]therwise disposed of except with the consent and approval of the Cherokee national council and the Secretary of the Interior. And whenever any such lands or buildings shall be sold or disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall be applied by said society or societies for like purposes within said nation, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 15. The United States may settle any civilized Indians, friendly with the Cherokees and adjacent tribes, within the Cherokee country, on unoccupied lands east of 96°, on such terms as may be agreed upon by any such tribe and the Cherokees, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, which shall be consistent with the following provisions, viz: Should any such tribe or band of Indians settling in said country abandon their tribal organization, there being first paid into the Cherokee national fund a sum of money which shall sustain the same proportion to the then existing national fund that the number of Indians sustain to the whole number of Cherokees then residing in the Cherokee country, they shall be incorporated into and ever after remain a part of the Cherokee Nation, on equal terms in every respect with native citizens. And should any such tribe, thus settling in said country, decide to preserve their tribal organizations, and to maintain their tribal laws, customs, and usages, not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the Cherokee Nation, they shall have a district of country set off for their use by metes and bounds equal to one hundred and sixty acres, if they should so decide, for each man, woman, and child of said tribe, and shall pay for the same into the national fund such price as may be agreed on by them and the Cherokee Nation, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, and in cases of disagreement the price to be fixed by the President. And the said tribe thus settled shall also pay into the national fund a sum of money, to be agreed on by the respective parties, not greater in proportion to the whole existing national fund and the probable proceeds of the lands herein ceded or authorized to be ceded or sold than their numbers bear to the whole number of Cherokees then residing in said

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

country, and thence afterwards they shall enjoy all the rights of native Cherokees. But no Indians who have no tribal organizations, or who shall determine to abandon their tribal organizations, shall be permitted to settle east of the 96° of longitude without the consent of the Cherokee national council, or of a delegation duly appointed by it, being first obtained. And no Indians who have and determine to preserve the tribal organizations shall be permitted to settle, as herein provided, east of the 96° of longitude without such consent being first obtained, unless the President of the United States, after a full hearing of the objections offered by said council or delegation to such settlement, shall determine that the objections are insufficient, in which case he may authorize the settlement of such tribe east of the 96° of longitude. ARTICLE 16. The United States may settle friendly Indians in any part of the Cherokee country west of 96°, to be taken in a compact form in quantity not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres for each member of each of said tribes thus to be settled; the boundaries of each of said districts to be distinctly marked, and the land conveyed in fee-simple to each of said tribes to be held in common or by their members in severalty as the United States may decide. Said lands thus disposed of to be paid for to the Cherokee Nation at such price as may be agreed on between the said parties in interest, subject to the approval of the President; and if they should not agree, then the price to be fixed by the President. The Cherokee Nation to retain the right of possession of and jurisdiction over all of said country west of 96° of longitude until thus sold and occupied, after which their jurisdiction and right of possession to terminate forever as to each of said districts thus sold and occupied. ARTICLE 17. The Cherokee Nation hereby cedes, in trust to the United States, the tract of land in the State of Kansas which was sold to the Cherokees by the United States, under the provisions of the second article of the treaty of 1835; and also that strip of the land ceded to the nation by the fourth article of said treaty which is included in the State of Kansas, and the Cherokees consent that said lands may be

www.abc-clio.com

547

included in the limits and jurisdiction of the said State. The lands herein ceded shall be surveyed as the public lands of the United States are surveyed, under the direction of the Commissioner of the General LandOffice, and shall be appraised by two disinterested persons, one to be designated by the Cherokee national council and one by the Secretary of the Interior, and, in case of disagreement, by a third person, to be mutually selected by the aforesaid appraisers. The appraisement to be not less than an average of one dollar and a quarter per acre, exclusive of improvements. And the Secretary of the Interior shall, from time to time, as such surveys and appraisements are approved by him, after due advertisements for sealed bids, sell such lands to the highest bidders for cash, in parcels not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, and at not less than the appraised value: Provided, That whenever there are im provements of the value of fifty dollars made on the lands not being mineral, and owned and personally occupied by any person for agricultural purposes at the date of the signing hereof, such person so owning, and in person residing on such improvements, shall, after due proof, made under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, be entitled to buy, at the appraised value, the smallest quantity of land in legal subdivisions which will include his improvements, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and sixty acres; the expenses of survey and appraisement to be paid by the Secretary out of the proceeds of sale of said land: Provided, That nothing in this article shall prevent the Secretary of the Interior from selling the whole of said lands not occupied by actual settlers at the date of the ratification of this treaty, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to each person entitled to pre-emption under the pre-emption laws of the United States, in a body, to any responsible party, for cash, for a sum not less than one dollar per acre. ARTICLE 18. That any lands owned by the Cherokees in the State of Arkansas and in States east of the Mississippi may be sold by the Cherokee Nation in such manner as their national council may prescribe, all such sales being first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

548

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

ARTICLE 19. All Cherokees being heads of families residing at the date of the ratification of this treaty on any of the lands herein ceded, or authorized to be sold, and desiring to remove to the reserved country, shall be paid by the purchasers of said lands the value of such improvements, to be ascertained and appraised by the commissioners who appraise the lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and if he shall elect to remain on the land now occupied by him, shall be entitled to receive a patent from the United States in fee-simple for three hundred and twenty acres of land to include his improvements, and thereupon he and his family shall cease to be members of the nation. And the Secretary of the Interior shall also be authorized to pay the reasonable costs and expenses of the delegates of the southern Cherokees. The moneys to be paid under this article shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sales of the national lands in Kansas. ARTICLE 20. Whenever the Cherokee national council shall request it, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause the country reserved for the Cherokees to be surveyed and allotted among them, at the expense of the United States. ARTICLE 21. It being difficult to learn the precise boundary line between the Cherokee country and the States of Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas, it is agreed that the United States shall, at its own expense, cause the same to be run as far west as the Arkansas, and marked by permanent and conspicuous monuments, by two commissioners, one of whom shall be designated by the Cherokee national council. ARTICLE 22. The Cherokee national council, or any duly appointed delegation thereof, shall have the privilege to appoint an agent to examine the accounts of the nation with the Government of the United States at such time as they may see proper, and to continue or discharge such agent, and to appoint another, as may be thought best by such council or delegation; and such agent shall have free access to all accounts and books in the executive departments relating to the business of said Cherokee Nation, and an oppor-

www.abc-clio.com

tunity to examine the same in the presence of the officer having such books and papers in charge. ARTICLE 23. All funds now due the nation, or that may hereafter accrue from the sale of their lands by the United States, as hereinbefore provided for, shall be invested in the United States registered stocks at their current value, and the interest on all said funds shall be paid semi-annually on the order of the Cherokee Nation, and shall be applied to the following purposes, to wit: Thirty-five per cent. shall be applied for the support of the commonschools of the nation and educational purposes; fifteen per cent. for the orphan fund, and fifty per cent. for general purposes, including reasonable salaries of district officers; and the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the President of the United States, may pay out of the funds due the nation, on the order of the national council or a delegation duly authorized by it, such amount as he may deem necessary to meet outstanding obligations of the Cherokee Nation, caused by the suspension of the payment of their annuities, not to exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. ARTICLE 24. As a slight testimony for the useful and arduous services of the Rev. Evan Jones, for forty years a missionary in the Cherokee Nation, now a cripple, old and poor, it is agreed that the sum of three thousand dollars be paid to him, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, out of any Cherokee fund in or to come into his hands not otherwise appropriated. ARTICLE 25. A large number of the Cherokees who served in the Army of the United States having died, leaving no heirs entitled to receive bounties and arrears of pay on account of such service, it is agreed that all bounties and arrears for service in the regiments of Indian United States volunteers which shall remain unclaimed by any person legally entitled to receive the same for two years from the ratification of this treaty, shall be paid as the national council may direct, to be applied to the foundation and support of an asylum for the education of orphan children, which asylum shall be under the control of the national council, or of such benevolent society as

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866

said council may designate, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 26. The United States guarantee to the people of the Cherokee Nation the quiet and peaceable possession of their country and protection against domestic feuds and insurrections, and against hostilities of other tribes. They shall also be protected against inter[r]uptions or intrusion from all unauthorized citizens of the United States who may attempt to settle on their lands or reside in their territory. In case of hostilities among the Indian tribes, the United States agree that the party or parties commencing the same shall, so far as practicable, make reparation for the damages done. ARTICLE 27. The United States shall have the right to establish one or more military posts or stations in the Cherokee Nation, as may be deemed necessary for the proper protection of the citizens of the United States lawfully residing therein and the Cherokee and other citizens of the Indian country. But no sutler or other person connected therewith, either in or out of the military organization, shall be permitted to introduce any spirit[u]ous, vinous, or malt liquors into the Cherokee Nation, except the medical department proper, and by them only for strictly medical purposes. And all persons not in the military service of the United States, not citizens of the Cherokee Nation, are to be prohibited from coming into the Cherokee Nation, or remaining in the same, except as herein otherwise provided; and it is the duty of the United States Indian agent for the Cherokees to have such persons, not lawfully residing or sojourning therein, removed from the nation, as they now are, or hereafter may be, required by the Indian intercourse laws of the United States. ARTICLE 28. The United States hereby agree to pay for provisions and clothing furnished the army under Appotholehala in the winter of 1861 and 1862, not to exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars, the accounts to be ascertained and settled by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 29. The sum of ten thousand dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay the expenses of the delegates and representatives of the Cherokees invited

www.abc-clio.com

549

by the Government to visit Washington for the purposes of making this treaty, shall be paid by the United States on the ratification of this treaty. ARTICLE 30. The United States agree to pay to the proper claimants all losses of property by missionaries or missionary societies, resulting from their being ordered or driven from the country by United States agents, and from their property being taken and occupied or destroyed by by United States troops, not exceeding in the aggregate twenty thousand dollars, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE 31. All provisions of treaties heretofore ratified and in force, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this treaty, are hereby re-affirmed and declared to be in full force; and nothin herein shall be construed as an acknowledgment by the United States, or as a relinquishment by the Cherokee Nation of any claims or demands under the guarantees of former treaties, except as herein expressly provided. In testimony whereof, the said commissioners on the part of the United States, and the said delegation on the part of the Cherokee Nation, have hereunto set their hands and seals at the city of Washington, this ninth [nineteenth] day of July, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six. D. N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Elijah Sells, Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Smith Christie, White Catcher, James McDaniel, S. H. Benge, Danl. H. Ross, J. B. Jones. Delegates of the Cherokee Nation, appointed by Resolution of the National Council. In presence of— W. H. Watson, J. W. Wright. Signatures witnessed by the following-named persons, the following interlineations being made before signing: On page 1st the word “the” interlined, on page 11 the word “the” struck out, and to said page 11 sheet attached requiring publication of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

550

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

laws; and on page 34th the word “ceded” struck out and the words “neutral lands” inserted. Page 471/2 added relating to expenses of treaty. Thomas Ewing, jr. Wm. A. Phillips, J. W. Wright.

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867 Oct. 21, 1867. | 15 Stats., 589. | Ratified, July 25, 1868. | Proclaimed Aug. 25, 1868. Articles of a treaty concluded at the Council Camp on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort Larned, in the State of Kansas, on the twenty-first day of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, by and between the United States of America, represented by its commissioners duly appointed thereto to-wit: Nathaniel G. Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred S. [H.] Terry, John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Henderson, of the one part, and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians, represented by their chiefs and headmen duly authorized and empowered to act for the body of the people of said tribes (the names of said chiefs and headmen being hereto subscribed) of the other part, witness: Whereas, on the twenty-first day of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, a treaty of peace was made and entered into at the Council Camp, on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort Larned, in the State of Kansas, by and between the United States of America, by its commissioners Nathaniel G. Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred H. Terry, John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Henderson, of the one part, and the Kiowa and Comanche tribes of Indians, of the Upper Arkansas, by and through their chiefs and headmen whose names are subscribed thereto, of the other part, reference being had to said treaty; and whereas, since the making and signing of said treaty, at a council held at said camp on this day, the chiefs and headmen of the Apache nation or tribe of Indians express to the commissioners on the part of the United States, as aforesaid, a wish to be confederated with the said Kiowa and Comanche tribes, and to be placed, in every respect, upon an equal footing with said tribes; and whereas, at a council held at the same place and on

www.abc-clio.com

the same day, with the chiefs and headmen of the said Kiowa and Comanche Tribes, they consent to the confederation of the said Apache tribe, as desired by it, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in this supplementary treaty: Now, therefore, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the aforesaid commissioners, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Kiowa and Comanche tribes, and, also, the chiefs and headmen of the said Apache tribe, as follows, to-wit: ARTICLE 1. The said Apache tribe of Indians agree to confederate and become incorporated with the said Kiowa and Comanche Indians, and to accept as their permanent home the reservation described in the aforesaid treaty with said Kiowa and Comanche tribes, concluded as aforesaid at this place, and they pledge themselves to make no permanent settlement at any place, nor on any lands, outside of said reservation. ARTICLE 2. The Kiowa and Comanche tribes, on their part, agree that all the benefits and advantages arising from the employment of physicians, teachers, carpenters, millers, engineers, farmers, and blacksmiths, agreed to be furnished under the provisions of their said treaty, together with all the advantages to be derived from the construction of agency buildings, warehouses, mills, and other structures, and also from the establishment of schools upon their said reservation, shall be jointly and equally shared and enjoyed by the said Apache Indians, as though they had been originally a part of said tribes; and they further agree that all other benefits arising from said treaty shall be jointly and equally shared as aforesaid. ARTICLE 3. The United States, on its part, agrees that clothing and other articles named in Article X. of said original treaty, together with all money or other annuities agreed to be furnished under any of the provisions of said treaty, to the Kiowa and Comanches, shall be shared equally by the Apaches. In all cases where specific articles of clothing are agreed to be furnished to the Kiowas and Comanches, similar articles shall be furnished to the Apaches, and a separate census of the Apaches shall be annually taken and returned by the agent, as provided for the other tribes. And the United States further agrees, in consideration of the incorporation of said Apaches, to increase the annual appropriation of money, as provided for in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Article X. of said treaty, from twenty-five thousand to thirty thousand dollars; and the latter amount shall be annually appropriated, for the period therein named, for the use and benefit of said three tribes, confederated as herein declared; and the clothing and other annuities, which may from time to time be furnished to the Apaches, shall be based upon the census of the three tribes, annually to be taken by the agent, and shall be separately marked, forwarded, and delivered to them at the agency house, to be built under the provisions of said original treaty. ARTICLE 4. In consideration of the advantages conferred by this supplementary treaty upon the the Apache tribe of Indians, they agree to observe and faithfully comply with all the stipulations and agreements entered into by the Kiowas and Comanches in said original treaty. They agree, in the same manner, to keep the peace toward the whites and all other persons under the jurisdiction of the United States, and to do and perform all other things enjoined upon said tribes by the provisions of said treaty; and they hereby give up and forever relinquish to the United States all rights, privileges, and grants now vested in them, or intended to be transferred to them, by the treaty between the United States and the Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribes of Indians, concluded at the camp on the Little Arkansas River, in the State of Kansas, on the fourteenth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and also by the supplementary treaty, concluded at the same place on the seventeenth day of the same month, between the United States, of the one part, and the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Apache tribes, of the other part. In testimony of all which, the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals at the place and on the day hereinbefore stated. N. G. Taylor, [SEAL.] President of Indian Commission. Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.] Brevet Major-General, Commissioner, &c. C. C. Augur, [SEAL.] Brevet Major-General. Alfred H. Terry, [SEAL.] Brevet Major-General and Brigadier-General. John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.] Samuel F. Tappan, [SEAL.]

www.abc-clio.com

551

J. B. Henderson, [SEAL.] On the part of the Kiowas: Satanka, or Sitting bear, his x mark, [SEAL.] Sa-tan-ta, or White Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.] Wah-toh-konk, or Black Eagle, his x mark, [SEAL.] Ton-a-en-ko, or Kicking Eagle, his x mark, [SEAL.] Fish-e-more, or Stinking Saddle, his x mark, [SEAL.] Ma-ye-tin, or Woman’s Heart, his x mark, [SEAL.] Sa-tim-gear, or Stumbling Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.] Sa-pa-ga, or One Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.] Cor-beau, or The Crow, his x mark, [SEAL.] Sa-ta-more, or Bear Lying Down, his x mark, [SEAL.] On the part of the Comanches: Parry-wah-say-men, or Ten Bears, his x mark, [SEAL.] Tep-pe-navon, or Painted Lips, his x mark, [SEAL.] To-she-wi, or Silver Brooch, his x mark, [SEAL.] Cear-chi-neka, or Standing Feather, his x mark, [SEAL.] Ho-we-ar, or Gap in the Woods, his x mark, [SEAL.] Tir-ha-yah-gua-hip, or Horse’s Back, his x mark, [SEAL.] Es-a-man-a-ca, or Wolf’s Name, his x mark, [SEAL.] Ah-te-es-ta, or Little Horn, his x mark, [SEAL.] Pooh-yah-to-yeh-be, or Iron Mountain, his x mark, [SEAL.] Sad-dy-yo, or Dog Fat, his x mark, [SEAL.] On the part of the Apaches: Mah-vip-pah, Wolf’s Sleeve, his x mark, [SEAL.] Kon-zhon-ta-co, Poor Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.] Cho-se-ta, or Bad Back, his x mark, [SEAL.] Nah-tan, or Brave Man, his x mark, [SEAL.] Ba-zhe-ech, Iron Shirt, his x mark, [SEAL.] Til-la-ka, or White Horn, his x mark, [SEAL.] Attest: Ashton S. H. White, secretary. Geo. B. Willis, reporter. Philip McCusker, interpreter. John D. Howland, clerk Indian Commission.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

552

Treaty with the Navajo, 1868

Sam’l S. Smoot, United States surveyor. A. A. Taylor. J. H. Leavenworth, United States Indian agent. Thos. Murphy, superintendent Indian affairs. Joel H. Elliott, major, Seventh U.S. Cavalry.

Treaty with the Navajo, 1868 June 1, 1868. | 15 Stats., p. 667. | Ratified July 25, 1868. | Proclaimed Aug. 12, 1868. Articles of a treaty and agreement made and entered into at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, on the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, by and between the United States, represented by its commissioners, Lieutenant-General W. T. Sherman and Colonel Samuel F. Tappan, of the one part, and the Navajo Nation or tribe of Indians, represented by their chiefs and head-men, duly authorized and empowered to act for the whole people of said nation or tribe, (the names of said chiefs and head-men being hereto subscribed,) of the other part, witness: ARTICLE 1. From this day forward all war between the parties to this agreement shall forever cease. The Government of the United States desires peace, and its honor is hereby pledged to keep it. The Indians desire peace, and they now pledge their honor to keep it. If bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians, the United States will, upon proof made to the agent and forwarded to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at Washington City, proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and also to reimburse the injured persons for the loss sustained. If the bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority of the United States and at peace therewith, the Navajo tribe agree that they will, on proof made to their agent, and on notice by him, deliver up the wrongdoer to the United States, to be tried and punished according to its laws; and in case they wilfully refuse so to do, the person injured shall be

www.abc-clio.com

reimbursed for his loss from the annuities or other moneys due or to become due to them under this treaty, or any others that may be made with the United States. And the President may prescribe such rules and regulations for ascertaining damages under this article as in his judgment may be proper; but no such damage shall be adjusted and paid until examined and passed upon by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and no one sustaining loss whilst violating, or because of his violating, the provisions of this treaty or the laws of the United States, shall be reimbursed therefor. ARTICLE 2. The United States agrees that the following district of country, to wit: bounded on the north by the 37th degree of north latitude, south by an east and west line passing through the site of old Fort Defiance, in Cañon Bonito, east by the parallel of longitude which, if prolonged south, would pass through old Fort Lyon, or the Ojo-de-oso, Bear Spring, and west by a parallel of longitude about 109° 30° west of Greenwich, provided it embraces the outlet of the Cañon-de-Chilly, which cañon is to be all included in this reservation, shall be, and the same is hereby, set apart for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe of Indians, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit among them; and the United States agrees that no persons except those herein so authorized to do, and except such officers, soldiers, agents, and employées of the Government, or of the Indians, as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties imposed by law, or the orders of the President, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in, the territory described in this article. ARTICLE 3. The United States agrees to cause to be built, at some point within said reservation, where timber and water may be convenient, the following buildings: a warehouse, to cost not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars; an agency building for the residence of the agent, not to cost exceeding three thousand dollars; a carpenter-shop and blacksmith-shop, not to cost exceeding one thousand dollars each; and a schoolhouse and chapel, so soon as a sufficient number of children can be induced to attend school, which shall not cost to exceed five thousand dollars.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Navajo, 1868

ARTICLE 4. The United States agrees that the agent for the Navajos shall make his home at the agency building; that he shall reside among them, and shall keep an office open at all times for the purpose of prompt and diligent inquiry into such matters of complaint by or against the Indians as may be presented for investigation, as also for the faithful discharge of other duties enjoined by law. In all cases of depredation on person or property he shall cause the evidence to be taken in writing and forwarded, together with his finding, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, whose decision shall be binding on the parties to this treaty. ARTICLE 5. If any individual belonging to said tribe, or legally incorporated with it, being the head of a family, shall desire to commence farming, he shall have the privilege to select, in the presence and with the assistance of the agent then in charge, a tract of land within said reservation, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres in extent, which tract, when so selected, certified, and recorded in the “land-book” as herein described, shall cease to be held in common, but the same may be occupied and held in the exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and of his family, so long as he or they may continue to cultivate it. Any person over eighteen years of age, not being the head of a family, may in like manner select, and cause to be certified to him or her for purposes of cultivation, a quantity of land, not exceeding eighty acres in extent, and thereupon be entitled to the exclusive possession of the same as above directed.

553

The United States may pass such laws on the subject of alienation and descent of property between the Indians and their descendants as may be thought proper. ARTICLE 6. In order to insure the civilization of the Indians entering into this treaty, the necessity of education is admitted, especially of such of them as may be settled on said agricultural parts of this reservation, and they therefore pledge themselves to compel their children, male and female, between the ages of six and sixteen years, to attend school; and it is hereby made the duty of the agent for said Indians to see that this stipulation is strictly complied with; and the United States agrees that, for every thirty children between said ages who can be induced or compelled to attend school, a house shall be provided, and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education shall be furnished, who will reside among said Indians, and faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher. The provisions of this article to continue for not less than ten years. ARTICLE 7. When the head of a family shall have selected lands and received his certificate as above directed, and the agent shall be satisfied that he intends in good faith to commence cultivating the soil for a living, he shall be entitled to receive seeds and agricultural implements for the first year, not exceeding in value one hundred dollars, and for each succeeding year he shall continue to farm, for a period of two years, he shall be entitled to receive seeds and implements to the value of twenty-five dollars.

For each tract of land so selected a certificate containing a description thereof, and the name of the person selecting it, with a certificate endorsed thereon, that the same has been recorded, shall be delivered to the party entitled to it by the agent, after the same shall have been recorded by him in a book to be kept in his office, subject to inspection, which said book shall be known as the “Navajo landbook.”

ARTICLE 8. In lieu of all sums of money or other annuities provided to be paid to the Indians herein named under any treaty or treaties heretofore made, the United States agrees to deliver at the agency-house on the reservation herein named, on the first day of September of each year for ten years, the following articles, to wit:

The President may at any time order a survey of the reservation, and when so surveyed, Congress shall provide for protecting the rights of said settlers in their improvements, and may fix the character of the title held by each.

Such articles of clothing, goods, or raw materials in lieu thereof, as the agent may make his estimate for, not exceeding in value five dollars per Indian—each Indian being encouraged to manufacture their own clothing, blankets, &c.; to be furnished with no article

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

554

Treaty with the Navajo, 1868

which they can manufacture themselves. And, in order that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may be able to estimate properly for the articles herein named, it shall be the duty of the agent each year to forward to him a full and exact census of the Indians, on which the estimate from year to year can be based.

trains, coaches, mules, or cattle belonging to the people of the United States, or to persons friendly therewith.

And in addition to the articles herein named, the sum of ten dollars for each person entitled to the beneficial effects of this treaty shall be annually appropriated for a period of ten years, for each person who engages in farming or mechanical pursuits, to be used by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the purchase of such articles as from time to time the condition and necessities of the Indians may indicate to be proper; and if within the ten years at any time it shall appear that the amount of money needed for clothing, under the article, can be appropriated to better uses for the Indians named herein, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may change the appropriation to other purposes, but in no event shall the amount of this appropriation be withdrawn or discontinued for the period named, provided they remain at peace. And the President shall annually detail an officer of the Army to be present and attest the delivery of all the goods herein named to the Indians, and he shall inspect and report on the quantity and quality of the goods and the manner of their delivery.

5th. They will never kill or scalp white men, nor attempt to do them harm.

ARTICLE 9. In consideration of the advantages and benefits conferred by this treaty, and the many pledges of friendship by the United States, the tribes who are parties to this agreement hereby stipulate that they will relinquish all right to occupy any territory outside their reservation, as herein defined, but retain the right to hunt on any unoccupied lands contiguous to their reservation, so long as the large game may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase; and they, the said Indians, further expressly agree: 1st. That they will make no opposition to the construction of railroads now being built or hereafter to be built across the continent. 2d. That they will not interfere with the peaceful construction of any railroad not passing over their reservation as herein defined. 3d. That they will not attack any persons at home or travelling, nor molest or disturb any wagon-

www.abc-clio.com

4th. That they will never capture or carry off from the settlements women or children.

6th. They will not in future oppose the construction of railroads, wagon-roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States; but should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the Government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of said commissioners to be a chief or head-men of the tribe. 7th. They will make no opposition to the military posts or roads now established, or that may be established, not in violation of treaties heretofore made or hereafter to be made with any of the Indian tribes. ARTICLE 10. No future treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation herein described, which may be held in common, shall be of any validity or force against said Indians unless agreed to and executed by at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying or interested in the same; and no cession by the tribe shall be understood or construed in such manner as to deprive, without his consent, any individual member of the tribe of his rights to any tract of land selected by him as provided in article [5] of this treaty. ARTICLE 11. The Navajos also hereby agree that at any time after the signing of these presents they will proceed in such manner as may be required of them by the agent, or by the officer charged with their removal, to the reservation herein provided for, the United States paying for their subsistence en route, and providing a reasonable amount of transportation for the sick and feeble. ARTICLE 12. It is further agreed by and between the parties to this agreement that the sum of one hundred and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Navajo, 1868

fifty thousand dollars appropriated or to be appropriated shall be disbursed as follows, subject to any condition provided in the law, to wit: 1st. The actual cost of the removal of the tribe from the Bosque Redondo reservation to the reservation, say fifty thousand dollars. 2d. The purchase of fifteen thousand sheep and goats, at a cost not to exceed thirty thousand dollars. 3d. The purchase of five hundred beef cattle and a million pounds of corn, to be collected and held at the military post nearest the reservation, subject to the orders of the agent, for the relief of the needy during the coming winter. 4th. The balance, if any, of the appropriation to be invested for the maintenance of the Indians pending their removal, in such manner as the agent who is with them may determine. 5th. The removal of this tribe to be made under the supreme control and direction of the military commander of the Territory of New Mexico, and when completed, the management of the tribe to revert to the proper agent. ARTICLE 13. The tribe herein named, by their representatives, parties to this treaty, agree to make the reservation herein described their permanent home, and they will not as a tribe make any permanent settlement elsewhere, reserving the right to hunt on the lands adjoining the said reservation formerly called theirs, subject to the modifications named in this treaty and the orders of the commander of the department in which said reservation may be for the time being; and it is further agreed and understood by the parties to this treaty, that if any Navajo Indian or Indians shall leave the reservation herein described to settle elsewhere, he or they shall forfeit all the rights, privileges, and annuities conferred by the terms of this treaty; and it is further agreed by the parties to this treaty, that they will do all they can to induce Indians now away from reservations set apart for the exclusive use and occupation of the Indians, leading a nomadic life, or engaged in war against the people of the United States, to abandon such a life and settle permanently in one of the territorial reservations set

www.abc-clio.com

555

apart for the exclusive use and occupation of the Indians. In testimony of all which the said parties have hereunto, on this the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Fort Sumner, in the Territory of New Mexico, set their hands and seals. W. T. Sherman, Lieutenant-General, Indian Peace Commissioner. S. F. Tappan, Indian Peace Commissioner. Barboncito, chief, his x mark, Armijo, his x mark, Delgado, his mark, Manuelito, his x mark, Largo, his x mark, Herrero, his x mark, Chiqueto, his x mark, Muerto de Hombre, his x mark, Hombro, his x mark, Narbono, his x mark, Narbono Segundo, his x mark, Gañado Mucho, his x mark Council: Riquo, his x mark, Juan Martin, his x mark, Serginto, his x mark, Grande, his x mark, Inoetenito, his x mark, Muchachos Mucho, his x mark, Chiqueto Segundo, his x mark, Cabello Amarillo, his x mark, Francisco, his x mark, Torivio, his x mark, Desdendado, his x mark, Juan, his x mark, Guero, his x mark, Gugadore, his x mark, Cabason, his x mark, Barbon Segundo, his x mark, Cabares Colorados, his x mark Attest: Geo. W. G. Getty, colonel Thirty-seventh Infantry, brevet major-general U. S. Army, B. S. Roberts, brevet brigadier-general U. S. Army, lieutenant-colonel Third Cavalry, J. Cooper McKee, brevet lieutenant-colonel, surgeon U. S. Army, Theo. H. Dodd, United States Indian agent for Navajos,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

556

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

Chas. McClure, brevet major and commissary of subsistence, U. S. Army, James F. Weeds, brevet major and assistant surgeon, U. S. Army, J. C. Sutherland, interpreter, William Vaux, chaplain U. S. Army

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 July 3, 1968 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Fort Bridger, Utah Territory, on the third day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, by and between the undersigned commissioners on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs and head-men of and representing the Shoshonee (eastern band)and Bannack tribes of Indians, they being duly authorized to act in the premises: ARTICLE 1. From this day forward peace between the parties to this treaty shall forever continue. The Government of the United States desires peace, and its honor is hereby pledged to keep it. The Indians desire peace, and they hereby pledge their honor to maintain it. If bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians, the United States will, upon proof made to the agent and forwarded to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, at Washington City, proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and also re-imburse the injured person for the loss sustained. If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority of the United States, and at peace therewith, the Indians herein named solemnly agree that they will, on proof made to their agent and notice by him, deliver up the wrong-doer to the United States, to be tried and punished according to the laws; and in case they wilfully refuse so to do, the person injured

www.abc-clio.com

shall be re-imbursed for his loss from the annuities or other moneys due or to become due to them under this or other treaties made with the United States. And the President, on advising with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, shall prescribe such rules and regulations for ascertaining damages under the provisions of this article as in his judgment may be proper. But no such damages shall be adjusted and paid until thoroughly examined and passed upon by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and no one sustaining loss while violating or because of his violating the provisions of this treaty or the laws of the United States, shall be reimbursed therefor. ARTICLE 2. It is agreed that whenever the Bannacks desire a reservation to be set apart for their use, or whenever the President of the United States shall deem it advisable for them to be put upon a reservation, he shall cause a suitable one to be selected for them in their present country, which shall embrace reasonable portions of the “PortNeuf” and “Kansas Prairie” countries, and that, when this reservation is declared, the United States will secure to the Bannacks the same rights and privileges therein, and make the same and like expenditures therein for their benefit, except the agency-house and residence of agent, in proportion to their numbers, as herein provided for the Shoshonee reservation. The United States further agrees that the following district of country, to wit: Commencing at the mouth of Owl Creek and running due south to the crest of the divide between the Sweet-water and Papo Agie Rivers; thence along the crest of said divide and the summit of Wind River Mountains to the longitude of North Fork of Wind River; thence due north to mouth of said North Fork and up its channel to a point twenty miles above its mouth; thence in a straight line to head-waters of Owl Creek and along middle of channel of Owl Creek to place of beginning, shall be and the same is set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Shoshonee Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employés of the Government as may be authorized

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article for the use of said Indians, and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish all title, claims, or rights in and to any portion of the territory of the United States, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid. ARTICLE 3. The United States agrees, at its own proper expense, to construct at a suitable point of the Shoshonee reservation a warehouse or store-room for the use of the agent in storing goods belonging to the Indians, to cost not exceeding two thousand dollars; an agency building for the residence of the agent, to cost not exceeding three thousand; a residence for the physician, to cost not more than two thousand dollars; and five other buildings, for a carpenter, farmer, blacksmith, miller, and engineer, each to cost not exceeding two thousand dollars; also a schoolhouse or mission building so soon as a sufficient number of children can be induced by the agent to attend school, which shall not cost exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars. The United States agrees further to cause to be erected on said Shoshonee reservation, near the other buildings herein authorized, a good steam circularsaw mill, with a grist-mill and shingle-machine attached, the same to cost not more than eight thousand dollars. ARTICLE 4. The Indians herein named agree, when the agency house and other buildings shall be constructed on their reservations named, they will make said reservations their permanent home, and they will make no permanent settlement elsewhere; but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts. ARTICLE 5. The United States agrees that the agent for said Indians shall in the future make his home at the agency building on the Shoshonee reservation, but shall direct and supervise affairs on the Bannack reservation; and shall keep an office open at all times for the purpose of prompt and diligent inquiry into such

www.abc-clio.com

557

matters of complaint by and against the Indians as may be presented for investigation under the provisions of their treaty stipulations, as also for the faithful discharge of other duties enjoined by law. In all cases of depredation on person or property he shall cause the evidence to be taken in writing and forwarded, together with his finding, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, whose decision shall be binding on the parties to this treaty. ARTICLE 6. If any individual belonging to said tribes of Indians, or legally incorported with them, being the head of a family, shall desire to commence farming, he shall have the privilege to select, in the presence and with the assistance of the agent then in charge, a tract of land within the reservation of his tribe, not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres in extent, which tract so selected, certified, and recorded in the “landbook,” as herein directed, shall cease to be held in common, but the same may be occupied and held in the exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and of his family, so long as he or they may continue to cultivate it. Any person over eighteen years of age, not being the head of a family, may in like manner select and cause to be certified to him or her, for purposes of cultivation, a quantity of land not exceeding eighty acres in extent, and thereupon be entitled to the exclusive possession of the same as above described. For each tract of land so selected a certificate, containing a description thereof, and the name of the person selecting it, with a certificate indorsed thereon that the same has been recorded, shall be delivered to the party entitled to it by the agent, after the same shall have been recorded by him in a book to be kept in his office subject to inspection, which said book shall be known as the “Shoshone (eastern band) and Bannack land-book.” The President may at any time order a survey of these reservations, and when so surveyed Congress shall provide for protecting the rights of the Indian settlers in these improvements, and may fix the character of the title held by each. The United States may pass such laws on the subject of alienation and descent of property as between Indians, and on all subjects connected with the government of the Indians on said reservations, and the internal police thereof, as may be thought proper.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

558

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

ARTICLE 7. In order to insure the civilization of the tribes entering into this treaty, the necessity of education is admitted, especially of such of them as are or may be settled on said agricultural reservations, and they therefore pledge themselves to compel their children, male and female, between the ages of six and sixteen years, to attend school; and it is hereby made the duty of the agent for said Indians to see that this stipulation is strictly complied with; and the United States agrees that for every thirty children between said ages who can be induced or compelled to attend school, a house shall be provided and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education shall be furnished, who will reside among said Indians and faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher. The provisions as this article to continue for twenty years. ARTICLE 8. When the head of a family or lodge shall have selected lands and received his certificate as above directed, and the agent shall be satisfied that he intends in good faith to commence cultivating the soil for a living, he shall be entitled to receive seeds and agricultural implements for the first year, in value one hundred dollars, and for each succeeding year he shall continue to farm, for a period of three years more, he shall be entitled to receive seeds and implements as aforesaid in value twenty-five dollars per annum. And it is further stipulated that such persons as commence farming shall receive instructions from the farmers herein provided for, and whenever more than one hundred persons on either reservation shall enter upon the cultivation of the soil, a second blacksmith shall be provided, with such iron, steel, and other material as may be required. ARTICLE 9. In lieu of all sums of money or other annuities provided to be paid to the Indians herein named, under any and all treaties heretofore made with them, the United States agrees to deliver at the agency-house on the reservation here in provided for, on the first day of September of each year, for thirty years, the following articles, to wit: For each male person over fourteen years of age, a suit of good substantial woollen clothing, consisting of coat, hat, pantaloons, flannel shirt, and a pair

www.abc-clio.com

of woollen socks; for each female over twelve years of age, a flannel skirt, or the goods necessary to make it, a pair of woollen hose, twelve yards of calico; and twelve yards of cotton domestics. For the boys and girls under the ages named, such flannel and cotton goods as may be needed to make each a suit as aforesaid, together with a pair of woollen hose for each. And in order that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may be able to estimate properly for the articles herein named, it shall be the duty of the agent each year to forward to him a full and exact census of the Indians, on which the estimate from year to year can be based; and in addition to the clothing herein named, the sum of ten dollars shall be annually appropriated for each Indian roaming and twenty dollars for each Indian engaged in agriculture, for a period of ten years, to be used by the Secretary of the Interior in the purchase of such articles as from time to time the condition and necessities of the Indians may indicate to be proper. And if at any time within the ten years it shall appear that the amount of money needed for clothing under this article can be appropriated to better uses for the tribes herein named, Congress may by law change the appropriation to other purposes; but in no event shall the amount of this appropriation be withdrawn or discontinued for the period named. And the President shall annually detail an officer of the Army to be present and attest the delivery of all the goods herein named to the Indians, and he shall inspect and report on the quantity and quality of the goods and the manner of their delivery. ARTICLE 10. The United States hereby agrees to furnish annually to the Indians the physician, teachers, carpenter, miller, engineer, farmer, and blacksmith, as herein contemplated, and that such appropriations shall be made from time to time, on the estimates of the Secretary of the Interior, as will be sufficient to employ such persons. ARTICLE 11. No treaty for the cession of any portion of the reservations herein described which may be held in common shall be of any force or validity as against the said Indians, unless executed and signed by at least a majority of all the adult male Indians occupying or

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

interested in the same; and no cession by the tribe shall be understood or construed in such manner as to deprive without his consent, any individual member of the tribe of his right to any tract of land selected by him, as provided in Article 6 of this treaty. ARTICLE 12. It is agreed that the sum of five hundred dollars annually, for three years from the date when they commence to cultivate a farm, shall be expended in presents to the ten persons of said tribe who, in the judgment of the agent, may grow the most valuable crops for the respective year. ARTICLE 13. It is further agreed that until such time as the agency-buildings are established on the Shoshonee reservation, their agent shall reside at Fort Bridger, U. T., and their annuities shall be delivered to them at the same place in June of each year. N. G. Taylor, [SEAL.], W. T. Sherman, [SEAL.] LieutenantGeneral.Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.], John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.], S. F. Tappan, [SEAL.], C. C. Augur, [SEAL.], Brevet Major-General, U. S. Army, Commissioners., Alfred H. Terry, [SEAL.], Brigadier-General and Brevet Major-General, U. S. Army Attest: A. S. H. White, Secretary Shoshones: Wash-a-kie, his x mark, Wau-ny-pitz, his x mark, Toop-se-po-wot, his x mark, Nar-kok, his x mark, Taboonshe-ya, his x mark, Bazeel, his x mark, Pan-to-she-ga, his x mark, Ninny-Bitse, his x mark. Bannacks: Taggee, his x mark. Tay-to-ba, his x mark. We-rat-ze-won-a-gen, his x mark. Coo-sha-gan, his x mark.

www.abc-clio.com

559

Pan-sook-a-motse, his x mark. A-wite-etse, his x mark. Witnesses: Henry A. Morrow, Lieutenant-Colonel Thirty-sixth Infantry and, Brevet Colonel U. S. Army. Commanding Fort Bridger, Luther Manpa, United States Indian agent, W. A. Carter, J. Van Allen Carter, interpreter.

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871 Treaty No. 1, Aug 3, 1871 Treaty No. 2. Aug. 21, 1871 Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Chippewa and Cree Indians of Manitoba and Country Adjacent with Adhesions Treaty No. 1 ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. Whereas all the Indians inhabiting the said country have pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioner, been convened at a meeting at the Stone Fort, otherwise called Lower Fort Garry, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and to the said Indians of the other, and whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up to settlement and immigration a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrangements with them so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive year by year from Her ajesty’s bounty and benevolence.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

560

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner to name certain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as should be assumed by them, the said Indians have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say: Mis-koo-kenew or Red Eagle (Henry Prince), Ka-keka-penais, or Bird for ever, Na-sha-ke-penais, or Flying down bird, Na-na-wa-nanaw, or Centre of Bird’s Tail, Ke-we-tayash, or Flying round, Wa-ko-wush, or Whip-poor-will, Oo-za-we-kwun, or Yellow Quill,— and thereupon in open council the different bands have presented their respective Chiefs to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba and of the North-West Territory being present at such council, and to the said Commissioner, as the Chiefs and Headman for the purposes aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described; and whereas the said Lieutenant Governor and the said Commissioner then and there received and acknowledged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Headmen for the purpose aforesaid; and whereas the said Commissioner has proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has finally been agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say: The Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the Queen and successors forever all the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Beginning at the international boundary line near its junction with the Lake of the Woods, at a point due north from the centre of Roseau Lake; thence to run due north to the centre of Roseau Lake; thence northward to the centre of White Mouth Lake, otherwise called White Mud Lake; thence by the middle of the lake and the middle of the river issuing therefrom to the mouth thereof in Winnipeg River; thence by the Winnipeg River to its mouth; thence westwardly, including all the islands near the south end of the lake, across the lake to the mouth of Drunken River; thence westwardly to a point on Lake Manitoba half

www.abc-clio.com

way between Oak Point and the mouth of Swan Creek; thence across Lake Manitoba in a line due west to its western shore; thence in a straight line to the crossing of the rapids on the Assiniboine; thence due south to the international boundary line; and thence eastwardly by the said line to the place of beginning. To have and to hold the same to Her said Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever; and Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside and reserve for the sole and exclusive use of the Indians the following tracts of land, that is to say: For the use of the Indians belonging to the band of which Henry Prince, otherwise called Mis-koo-ke-new is the Chief, so much of land on both sides of the Red River, beginning at the south line of St. Peter’s Parish, as will furnish one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; and for the use of the Indians of whom Na-sha-ke-penais, Na-na-wananaw, Ke-we-tayash and Wa-ko-wush are the Chiefs, so much land on the Roseau River as will furnish one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, beginning from the mouth of the river; and for the use of the Indians of which Ka-ke-ka-penais is the Chief, so much land on the Winnipeg River above Fort Alexander as will furnish one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, beginning at a distance of a mile or thereabout above the Fort; and for the use of the Indians of whom Oo-za-we-kwun is Chief, so much land on the south and east side of the Assiniboine, about twenty miles above the Portage, as will furnish one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, reserving also a further tract enclosing said reserve to comprise an equivalent to twenty-five square miles of equal breadth, to be laid out round the reserve, it being understood, however, that if, at the date of the execution of this treaty, there are any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved by any band, Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with such settlers as She shall deem just, so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted to the Indians. And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians parties to this treaty, She hereby, through Her Commissioner, makes them a present of three dollars for each Indian man, woman and child belonging to the bands here represented.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school on each reserve hereby made whenever the Indians of the reserve should desire it. Within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise enacted by the proper legislative authority, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve Her Majesty’s Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors shall be strictly enforced. Her Majesty’s Commissioner shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the Indians inhabiting the district above described, distributing them in families, and shall in every year ensuing the date hereof, at some period during the month of July in each year, to be duly notified to the Indians and at or near their respective reserves, pay to each Indian family of five persons the sum of fifteen dollars Canadian currency, or in like proportion for a larger or smaller family, such payment to be made in such articles as the Indians shall require of blankets, clothing, prints (assorted colours), twine or traps, at the current cost price in Montreal, or otherwise, if Her Majesty shall deem the same desirable in the interests of Her Indian people, in cash. And the undersigned Chiefs do hereby bind and pledge themselves and their people strictly to observe this treaty and to maintain perpetual peace between themselves and Her Majesty’s white subjects, and not to interfere with the property or in any way molest the persons of Her Majesty’s white or other subjects. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioner and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hand and seal at Lower Fort Garry, this day and year herein first above named. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of, the same having been first read and explained: ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, Lieut.-Gov. of Man. and N.W. Territories. JAMES McKAY, P.L.C. A. G. IRVINE, Major, ABRAHAM COWLEY, DONALD GUNN, M.L.C.,

www.abc-clio.com

561

THOMAS HOWARD, P.S., HENRY COCHRANE, JAMES McARRISTER, HUGH McARRISTER, E. ALICE ARCHIBALD, HENRI BOUTHILLIER, WEMYSS M. SIMPSON. [L.S.], Indian Commissioner, MIS-KOO-KEE-NEW, or RED EAGLE, (HENRY PRINCE), his x mark, KA-KE-KA-PENAIS (or BIRD FOR EVER), WILLIAM PENNEFATHER, his x mark, NA-SHA-KE-PENNAIS, or FLYING DOWN BIRD, his x mark, NA-HA-WA-NANAN, or CENTRE OF BIRD’S TAIL, his x mark, KE-WE-TAY-ASH, or FLYINGROUND, his x mark, WA-KO-WUSH, or WHIP-POOR-WILL, his x mark, OO-ZA-WE-KWUN, or YELLOW QUILL, his x mark Memorandum of things outside of the Treaty which were promised at the Treaty at the Lower Fort, signed the third day of August, A.D. 1871. • For each Chief who signed the treaty, a dress distinguishing him as Chief. • For braves and for councillors of each Chief a dress; it being supposed that the braves and councillors will be two for each Chief. • For each Chief, except Yellow Quill, a buggy. • For the braves and councillors of each Chief, except Yellow Quill, a buggy. • In lieu of a yoke of oxen for each reserve, a bull for each, and a cow for each Chief; a boar for each reserve and a sow for each Chief, and a male and female of each kind of animal raised by farmers, these when the Indians are prepared to receive them. • A plough and a harrow for each settler cultivating the ground. • These animals and their issue to be Government property, but to be allowed for the use of the Indians, under the superintendence and control of the Indian Commissioner. • The buggies to be the property of the Indians to whom they are given. • The above contains an inventory of the terms concluded with the Indians.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

562

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

WEMYSS M. SIMPSON, MOLYNEUX St. JOHN, A. G. ARCHIBALD, JAS. McKAY.

The Committee submit the foregoing recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval: W. A. HIMSWORTH, Clerk Privy Council.

COPY of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 30th April, 1875. On a memorandum dated 27th April, 1875, from the Honourable the Minister of the Interior, bringing under consideration the very unsatisfactory state of affairs arising out of the so-called “outside promises” in connection with the Indian Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, Manitoba and North-west Territories, concluded, the former on the 3rd August, 1871, and the latter on 21st of the same month, and recommending for the reasons stated: 1st. That the written memorandum attached to Treaty No. 1 be considered as part of that Treaty and of Treaty No. 2, and that the Indian Commissioner be instructed to carry out the promises therein contained, in so far as they have not yet been carried out, and that the Commissioner be advised to inform the Indians that he has been authorized so to do. 2nd. That the Indian Commissioner be instructed to inform the Indians, parties to Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, that, while the Government cannot admit their claim to any thing which is not set forth in the treaty, and in the memorandum attached thereto, which treaty is binding alike upon the Government and upon the Indians, yet, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding between the Indian Commissioner and the Indians in the matter of Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, the Government, out of good feeling to the Indians and as a matter of benevolence, is willing to raise the annual payment to each Indian under Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, from $3 to $5 per annum, and make payment over and above such sum of $5, of $20 each and every year to each Chief, and a suit of clothing every three years to each Chief and each Headman, allowing two Headmen to each band, on the express understanding, however, that each Chief or other Indian who shall receive such increased annuity or annual payment shall be held to abandon all claim whatever against the Government in connection with the so-called “outside promises,” other than those contained in the memorandum attached to the treaty.

www.abc-clio.com

Certified, W. A. HIMSWORTH, Clerk Privy Council.

We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of Indian bands, representing bands of Indians who were parties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, mentioned in the report of the Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada, above printed, having had communication thereof, and fully understanding the same assent thereto and accept the increase of annuities therein mentioned, on the condition therein stated, and with the assent and approval of their several bands, it being agreed, however, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that the number of braves and councillors for each Chief shall be four, as at present, instead of two, as printed 1875.

In the presence of the following:

ABC-CLIO

ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [S.L.]. JAMES McKAY. ISAAC COWIE. FRANCIS FIELD. JOHN A. DAVIDSON. CHARLES WOOD. Representing East-Manitoba or Elm Point: SON-SONSE, chief, his x mark, NA-KA-NA-WA-TANG, his x mark, PA-PA-WE-GUN-WA-TAK, his x mark, Councillors. Representing Fairford Prairie: MA-SAH-KEE-YASH, chief, his x mark, DAVID MARSDEN, Councillor, his x mark, JOSEPH SUMNER, Councillor, his x mark, Representing Fairford Prairie: RICHARD WOODHOUSE, chief, JOHN ANDERSON, Councillor, JOHN THOMPSON, Councillor, his x mark

1-800-368-6868

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

Formerly Crane River and now Ebb and Flow Lake: PENAISE, chief, his x mark (son of deceased Broken Finger.), BAPTISTE, Councillor, his x mark, KAH-NEE-QUA-NASH, Councillor, his x mark, Representing Water Hen Band: KA-TAH-KAK-WA-NA-YAAS, chief, his x mark, WA-WAH-KOW-WEK-AH-POW, Councillor, his x mark, Représentants de la rivière de la Tortue et de la rivière de la Vallée ainsi que de Riding Mountain: KEE-SICK-KOO-WE-NIN, chief, his x mark (in place of Mekis, dead.), KEE-SAY-KEE-SICK, Councillor, his x mark, NOS-QUASH, brave, his x mark, BAPTISTE, brave, his x mark, Representing the St. Peter’s Band: MIS-KOO-KE-NEW, (or Red Eagle), his x mark, MA-TWA-KA-KEE-TOOT, his x mark, I-AND-WAY-WAY, his x mark, MA-KO-ME-WE-KUN, his x mark, AS-SHO-AH-MEY, his x mark. No. 124 We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of Indian bands representing bands of Indians who were parties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, mentioned in the report of a Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada, “as printed on the other side of this parchment,” having had communication thereof and fully understanding the same, assent thereto and accept the increase of annuities therein mentioned on the condition therein stated, and with the assent and approval of their several bands, it being agreed, however, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that the number of braves and councillors for each Chief shall be four, as at present, instead of two, as printed 1875. Signed near Fort Alexander, on the Indian Reserve, the twenty-third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Witnesses: J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner. J. DUBUC, A. DUBUC, JOSEPH MONKMAN, Interpreter.

www.abc-clio.com

563

WM. LOUNT, H. L. REYNOLDS. KAKEKEPENAIS, or (WILLIAM PENNEFATHER), his x mark, JOSEPH KENT, his x mark, PETANAQUAGE, or (HENRY VANE), his x mark, PETER HENDERSON, his x mark, KAY-PAYAHSINISK, his x mark. Signed at Broken Head River, the twenty-eighth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Witnesses: J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner. J. DUBUC, H. L. REYNOLDS, DANIEL DEVLIN, HENRY COOK. NASHAKEPENAIS, his x mark AHKEESEEKWASKEMG, his x mark NAYWAHEHEEKEEGIK, his x mark MAYJAHKEEGEEQUAN, his x mark PAYSAUGA, his x mark 124 We the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of Indian bands representing bands of Indians who were parties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the report of a Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada, as printed on the other side of this sheet, having had communication thereof and full understanding of the same, assent thereto and accept the increase of annuities therein mentioned, on the condition therein stated, and with the assent and approval of their several bands, it being agreed, however, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that the number of braves and councillors for each Chief shall be four, as at present, instead of two, as printed. Signed on the reserve at Rosseau River, 8th day of September, 1875. J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner. Witness: JAS. F. GRAHAM. MA-NA-WA-NANAN, (or CENTRE OF BIRD’S TAIL) Chief, his x mark,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

564

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

KE-WE-SAY-ASH, (or FLYING ROUND), Chief, his x mark, WA-KOO-WUSH, (or WHIPPOORWILL) Chief, his x mark, OSAH-WEE-KA-KAY, Councillor, his x mark, OSAYS-KOO-KOON, Councillor, his x mark, SHAY-WAY-ASH, Councillor, his x mark, SHE-SHE-PENSE, Councillor, his x mark, MA-MAH-TAK-CUM-E-CUP, Councillor, his x mark, PAH-TE-CU-WEE-NINN, Councillor, his x mark, PAH-TE-CU-WEE-NINN, Councillor, his x mark, AK-KA-QUIN-IASH, Brave, his x mark, ANA-WAY-WEE-TIN, Brave, his x mark, TIBIS-QUO-GE-SICK, Brave, his x mark, NE-SHO-TA, Brave, his x mark, NAT-TEE-KEE-GET, Brave, his x mark

Treaty No. 2 ARTICLES OF TREATY made and concluded this twenty-first day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioner Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chippewa Tribe of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. Whereas, all the Indians inhabiting the said country have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioner, been convened at a meeting at Manitoba Post to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and to the said Indians of the other; and whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up to settlement and immigration a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned and to obtain the consent thereto of her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrangement with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.

www.abc-clio.com

And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner to name certain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say: For the Swan Creek and Lake Manitoba Indians, Sou-sonse or Little Long Ears; for the Indians of Fairford and the neighboring localities, Ma-sahkee-yash or “He who flies to the bottom,” and Richard Woodhouse, whose Indian name is Kewee-tah-quun-na-yash or “He who flies round the feathers”; for the Indians of Waterhen River and Crane River and the neighboring localities, Francois, or Broken Fingers; and for the Indians of Riding Mountains and Dauphin Lake and the remainder of the territory hereby ceded, Mekis (the Eagle), or Giroux. And, thereupon, in open council the different bands have presented their respective Chiefs to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba and of the North-west Territory being present at such council and to the said Commissioner, as the Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes aforesaid, of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described; and whereas the said Lieutenant Governor and the said Commissioner then and there received and acknowledged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Headmen for the purposes aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described; and whereas the said Commissioner has proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has finally been agreed upon and concluded, as follows, that is to say: The Chippewa Tribe of Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the Queen, and Her successors forever, all the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: All that tract of country lying partly to the north and partly to the west of a tract of land ceded to Her

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

Majesty the Queen by the Indians inhabiting the Province of Manitoba, and certain adjacent localities, under the terms of a treaty made at Lower Fort Garry on the third day of August last past, the land now intended to be ceded and surrendered being particularly described as follows, that is to say: Beginning at the mouth of Winnipeg River, on the north line of the lands ceded by said treaty; thence running along the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg northwardly as far as the mouth of Beren’s River; thence across said lake to its western shore, at the north bank of the mouth of the Little Saskatchewan or Dauphin River; thence up said stream and along the northern and western shores thereof, and of St. Martin’s Lake, and along the north bank of the stream flowing into St. Martin’s Lake from Lake Manitoba by the general course of such stream to such last-mentioned lake; thence by the eastern and northern shores of Lake Manitoba to the mouth of the Waterhen River; thence by the eastern and northern shores of said river up stream to the northernmost extremity of a small lake known as Waterhen Lake; thence in a line due west to and across lake Winnepegosis; thence in a straight line to the most northerly waters forming the source of the Shell River; thence to a point west of the same two miles distant from the river, measuring at right angles thereto; thence by a line parallel with the Shell River to its mouth, and thence crossing the Assiniboine River and running parallel thereto and two miles distant therefrom, and to the westward thereof, to a point opposite Fort Ellice; thence in a south-westwardly course to the north-western point of the Moose Mountains; thence by a line due south to the United States frontier; thence by the frontier eastwardly to the westward line of said tract ceded by treaty as aforesaid; thence bounded thereby by the west, northwest and north lines of said tract, to the place of beginning, at the mouth of Winnipeg River. To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever; and Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside and reserve for the sole and exclusive use of the Indians inhabiting the said tract the following lots of land, that is to say: For the use of the Indians belonging to the band of which Mekis is Chief, so much land between Turtle River and Valley River, on the south side of Lake Dauphin, as will make one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five persons, or in the same proportion for a greater or smaller number of persons.

www.abc-clio.com

565

And for the use of the Indians belonging to the band of which François, or Broken Fingers, is Chief, so much land on Crane River, running into Lake Manitoba, as will make one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five persons, or in the same proportion for a greater or smaller number of persons. And for the use of the band of Indians belonging to the bands of which Ma-sah-kee-yash and Richard Woodhouse are Chiefs, so much land on the river between Lake Manitoba and St. Martin’s Lake, known as “Fairford River,” and including the present Indian mission grounds, as will make one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five persons, or in the same proportion for a greater or smaller number of persons. And for the use of the Indians of whom Sou-sonce is Chief, so much land on the east side of Lake Manitoba, to be laid off north of the creek near which a fallen elm tree now lies, and about half way between Oak Point and Manitoba Post, so much land as will make one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five persons, or in the same proportion for a greater or smaller number of persons. Saving, nevertheless, the rights of any white or other settler now in occupation of any lands within the lines of any such reserve. And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, parties to this treaty, She hereby, through Her Commissioner, makes them a present of three dollars for each Indian man, woman and child belonging to the band here represented. And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school in each reserve hereby made, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise enacted by the proper legislative authority, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere within Her NorthWest Territories, from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced. And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioner shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

566

Treaty 3, 1871

Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distributing them in families, and shall in every year ensuing the date hereof, at some period during the month of August in each year to be duly notified to the Indians, and at or near their respective reserves, pay to each Indian family of five persons the sum of fifteen dollars, Canadian currency, or in like proportion for a larger or smaller family, such payment to be made in such articles as the Indians shall require of blankets, clothing, prints (assorted colours), twine or traps, at the current cash price in Montreal, or otherwise, if Her Majesty shall deem the same desirable in the interest of Her Indian people, in cash. And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitants of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioner and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Manitoba Post this day and year herein first above named. Signed by the Chiefs within named, in presence of the following witnesses, the same having been first read and explained: ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, Lieut. Gov. of Manitoba and the N.-W. Territories, JAMES McKAY, P.L.C., MOLYNEUX St. JOHN,

www.abc-clio.com

E. A. ARCHIBALD, LILY ARCHIBALD, HENRI BOUTHILLIER, PAUL DE LARONDE, DONALD McDONALD, ELIZA McDONALD, ALEXANDER MUIR, Sr., WEMYSS M. SIMPSON, [L.S.] Indian Commissioner, MEKIS, his x mark, SOU-SONCE, his x mark, MA-SAH-KEE-YASH, his x mark, FRANÇOIS, his x mark, RICHARD WOODHOUSE.

Treaty 3, 1871 Oct. 3, 1873 Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians at the Northwest Angle on the Lake of the Woods with Adhesions ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION FOR TREATY 3 The Committee have had under consideration the memorandum dated 19th April, 1871, from the Hon. the Secretary of State for the provinces submitting with reference to his report of the 17th of the same month that the Indians mentioned in the last paragraph of that report and with whom it will be necessary first to deal occupy the country from the water shed of Lake Superior to the north west angle of the Lake of the Woods and from the American border to the height of land from which the streams flow towards Hudson’s Bay. That they are composed of Saulteaux and Lac Seul Indians of the Ojibbeway Nation, and number about twenty-five hundred men, women and children, and, retaining what they desire in reserves at certain localities where they fish for sturgeon, would, it is thought be willing to surrender for a certain annual payment their lands to the Crown. That the American Indians to the south of them surrendered their lands to the Government of the United States for an annual payment which has been stated to him (but not on authority) to amount to ten dollars per head for each man, woman and child of which six dollars is paid in goods and four in money. That to treat with these Indians with advantage he recommends

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 3, 1871

that Mr. Simon J. Dawson of the Department of Public Works and Mr. Robert Pither of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s service be associated with Mr. Wemyss M. Simpson—and further that the presents which were promised the Indians last year and a similar quantity for the present year should be collected at Fort Francis not later than the middle of June also that four additional suits of Chiefs’ clothes and flags should be added to those now in store at Fort Francis—and further that a small house and store for provisions should be constructed at Rainy River at the site and of the dimensions which Mr. Simpson may deem best—that the assistance of the Department of Public Works will be necessary should his report be adopted in carrying into effect the recommendations therein made as to provisions, clothes and construction of buildings. He likewise submits that it will be necessary that the sum of Six Thousand dollars in silver should be at Fort Francis subject to the Order of the above named Commissioners on the fifteenth day of June next— And further recommends that in the instructions to be given to them they should be directed to make the best arrangements in their power but authorized if need be to give as much as twelve dollars a family for each family not exceeding five—with such small Sum in addition where the family exceeds five as the Commissioners may find necessary—Such Subsidy to be made partly in goods and provisions and partly in money or wholly in goods and provisions should the Commissioners so decide for the surrender of the lands described in the earlier part of this report. The Committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for Your Excellency’s approval. Signed: Charles Tupper 25 April/71 TREATY No. 3 ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this third day of October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories; Joseph Alfred Norbert Provencher and Simon James Dawson, of the one part, and the Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibway Indians, inhabitants of

www.abc-clio.com

567

the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said country have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purpose as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say:— KEK-TA-PAY-PI-NAIS (Rainy River.), KITCHI-GAY-KAKE (Rainy River.), NOTE-NA-QUA-HUNG (North-West Angle.), NAWE-DO-PE-NESS (Rainy River.), POW-WA-SANG (North-West Angle.), CANDA-COM-IGO-WE-NINIE (North-West Angle.), PAPA-SKO-GIN (Rainy River.), MAY-NO-WAH-TAW-WAYS-KIONG (NorthWest Angle.), KITCHI-NE-KA-LE-HAN (Rainy River.), SAH-KATCH-EWAY (Lake Seul.), MUPA-DAY-WAH-SIN (Kettle Falls.), ME-PIE-SIES (Rainy Lake, Fort Frances.),

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

568

Treaty 3, 1871

OOS-CON-NA-GEITH (Rainy Lake.), WAH-SHIS-KOUCE (Eagle Lake. ), KAH-KEE-Y-ASH (Flower Lake.), GO-BAY (Rainy Lake.), KA-MO-TI-ASH (White Fish Lake.), NEE-SHO-TAL (Rainy River.), KEE-JE-GO-KAY (Rainy River.), SHA-SHA-GANCE (Shoal Lake.), SHAH-WIN-NA-BI-NAIS (Shoal Lake. ), AY-ASH-A-WATH (Buffalo Point.), PAY-AH-BEE-WASH (White Fish Bay.), KAH-TAY-TAY-PA-E-CUTCH (Lake of the Woods.) And thereupon, in open council, the different bands having presented their Chiefs to the said Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen for the purposes aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described: And whereas the said Commissioners then and there received and acknowledged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Headmen for the purpose aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described; And whereas the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded, as follows, that is to say:— The Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:— Commencing at a point on the Pigeon River route where the international boundary line between the Territories of Great Britain and the United States intersects the height of land separating the waters running to Lake Superior from those flowing to Lake Winnipeg; thence northerly, westerly and easterly along the height of land aforesaid, following its sinuosities, whatever their course may be, to the point at which the said height of land meets the summit of the watershed from which the streams flow to Lake Nepigon; thence northerly and westerly, or whatever may be its course, along the ridge

www.abc-clio.com

separating the waters of the Nepigon and the Winnipeg to the height of land dividing the waters of the Albany and the Winnipeg; thence westerly and north-westerly along the height of land dividing the waters flowing to Hudson’s Bay by the Albany or other rivers from those running to English River and the Winnipeg to a point on the said height of land bearing north forty-five degrees east from Fort Alexander, at the mouth of the Winnipeg; thence south forty-five degrees west to Fort Alexander, at the mouth of the Winnipeg; thence southerly along the eastern bank of the Winnipeg to the mouth of White Mouth River; thence southerly by the line described as in that part forming the eastern boundary of the tract surrendered by the Chippewa and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians to Her Majesty on the third of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, namely, by White Mouth River to White Mouth Lake, and thence on a line having the general bearing of White Mouth River to the fortyninth parallel of north latitude; thence by the fortyninth parallel of north latitude to the Lake of the Woods, and from thence by the international boundary line to the place beginning. The tract comprised within the lines above described, embracing an area of fifty-five thousand square miles, be the same more or less. To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen, and Her successors forever. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands, due respect being had to lands at present cultivated by the said Indians, and also to lay aside and reserve for the benefit of the said Indians, to be administered and dealt with for them by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, in such a manner as shall seem best, other reserves of land in the said territory hereby ceded, which said reserves shall be selected and set aside where it shall be deemed most convenient and advantageous for each band or bands of Indians, by the officers of the said Government appointed for that purpose, and such selection shall be so made after conference with the Indians; provided, however, that such reserves, whether for farming or other purposes, shall in no wise exceed in all one square mile for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; and such selections shall be made if possible during the course of next summer, or as soon thereafter as may be found

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 3, 1871

practicable, it being understood, however, that if at the time of any such selection of any reserve, as aforesaid, there are any settlers within the bounds of the lands reserved by any band, Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with such settlers as She shall deem just so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted to Indians; and provided also that the aforesaid reserves of lands, or any interest or right therein or appurtenant thereto, may be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by the said Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians, with the consent of the Indians entitled thereto first had and obtained. And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians She hereby, through Her Commissioners, makes them a present of twelve dollars for each man, woman and child belonging to the bands here represented, in extinguishment of all claims heretofore preferred. And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada may seem advisable whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from the evil influences of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may, from time to time, be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

www.abc-clio.com

569

It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indians that such sections of the reserves above indicated as may at any time be required for Public Works or buildings of what nature soever may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made for the value of any improvements thereon. And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distributing them in families, and shall in every year ensuing the date hereof, at some period in each year to be duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places to be appointed for that purpose within the territory ceded, pay to each Indian person the sum of five dollars per head yearly. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that the sum of fifteen hundred dollars per annum shall be yearly and every year expended by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Indians. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that the following articles shall be supplied to any band of the said Indians who are now actually cultivating the soil or who shall hereafter commence to cultivate the land, that is to say: two hoes for every family actually cultivating, also one spade per family as aforesaid, one plough for every ten families as aforesaid, five harrows for every twenty families as aforesaid, one scythe for every family as aforesaid, and also one axe and one cross-cut saw, one hand-saw, one pit-saw, the necessary files, one grind-stone, one auger for each band, and also for each Chief for the use of his band one chest of ordinary carpenter’s tools; also for each band enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and oats to plant the land actually broken up for cultivation by such band; also for each band one yoke of oxen, one bull and four cows; all the aforesaid articles to be given once for all for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that each Chief duly recognized as such shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five dollars per annum, and each subordinate officer, not exceeding three for each band, shall receive fifteen dollars

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

570

Treaty 3, 1871

per annum; and each such Chief and subordinate officer as aforesaid shall also receive once in every three years a suitable suit of clothing; and each Chief shall receive, in recognition of the closing of the treaty, a suitable flag and medal.

FRANK G. BECHER, ALFRED CODD, M.D., G. S. CORBAULT, PIERRE LEVIELLER, NICHOLAS CHATELAINE, ALEX. MORRIS L.G., J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Ind. Comr., S. J. DAWSON, KEE-TA-KAY-PI-NAIS, his x mark, KITCHI-GAY-KAKE, his x mark, NO-TE-NA-QUA-HUNG, his x mark, MAWE-DO-PE-NAIS, his x mark, POW-WA-SANG, his x mark, CANDA-COM-IGO-WI-NINE, his x mark, MAY-NO-WAH-TAW-WAYS-KUNG, his x mark, KITCHI-NE-KA-BE-HAN, his x mark, SAH-KATCH-EWAY, his x mark, MUKA-DAY-WAH-SIN, his x mark, ME-KIE-SIES, his x mark, OOS-CON-NA-GEISH, his x mark, WAH-SHIS-KOUCE, his x mark, KAH-KEE-Y-ASH, his x mark, GO-BAY, his x mark, KA-ME-TI-ASH, his x mark, NEE-SHO-TAL, his x mark, KEE-JEE-GO-KAY, his x mark, SHA-SHA-GAUCE, his x mark, SHAW-WIN-NA-BI-NAIS, his x mark, AY-ASH-A-WASH, his x mark, PAY-AH-BEE-WASH, his x mark, KAH-TAY-TAY-PA-O-CUTCH, his x mark

And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law, that they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitants of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof; and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods this day and year herein first above named. Signed by the Chiefs within named, in presence of the following witnesses, the same having been first read and explained by the Honorable James McKay: JAMES McKAY, MOLYNEUX St. JOHN, ROBERT PITHER, CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS, CHARLES NOLIN, A. McDONALD, Capt., Comg. Escort to Lieut. Governor, JAS. F. GRAHAM, JOSEPH NOLIN, A. McLEOD, GEORGE McPHERSON, Sr., SEDLEY BLANCHARD, W. FRED. BUCHANAN,

www.abc-clio.com

We, having had communication of the treaty, a certified copy whereof is hereto annexed, but not having been present at the councils held at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods between Her Majesty’s Commissioners, and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the several bands of Indians which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us and the said bands which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privilege whatsoever, which we, the said Chiefs and the said bands which we represent have, hold or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty, and every part thereof. To have and to hold the same unto and to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 3, 1871

571

the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever.

To S. J. Dawson, Esquire, Indian Commissioner, &c., &c., &c.

And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and reserves of the said treaty, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed; and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto, and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty.

SIR, —We hereby authorize you to treat with the various bands belonging to the Salteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians inhabiting the North-West Territories of the Dominion of Canada not included in the foregoing certified copy of articles of treaty, upon the same conditions and stipulations as are therein agreed upon, and to sign and execute for us and in our name and on our behalf the foregoing agreement annexed to the foregoing treaty.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, this thirteenth day of October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three. Signed by S. J. Dawson, Esquire, one of Her Majesty’s said Commissioners, for and on behalf and with the authority and consent of the Honorable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba and the North-West Territories, and J. A. N. Provencher, Esq., the remaining two Commissioners, and himself and by the Chiefs within named, on behalf of themselves and the several bands which they represent, the same and the annexed certified copy of articles of treaty having been first read and explained in presence of the following witnesses: THOS. A. P. TOWERS, JOHN AITKEN, A. J. McDONALD, UNZZAKI, JAS. LOGANOSH, his x mark, PINLLSISE

www.abc-clio.com

ALEX. MORRIS, Lieutenant-Governor. J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner. ADHESION BY HALFBREEDS OF RAINY RIVER AND LAKE (A.) This Memorandum of Agreement made and entered into this twelfth day of September one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, between Nicholas Chatelaine, Indian interpreter at Fort Francis and the Rainy River and acting herein solely in the latter capacity for and as representing the said Halfbreeds, on the one part, and John Stoughton Dennis, Surveyor General of Dominion Lands, as representing Her Majesty the Queen through the Government of the Dominion, of the other part, Witnesseth as follows:— Whereas the Half-breeds above described, by virtue of their Indian blood, claim a certain interest or title in the lands or territories in the vicinity of Rainy Lake and the Rainy River, for the commutation or surrender of which claims they ask compensation from the Government.

For and on behalf of the Commissioners, the Honorable Alexander Morris, Lieut. Governor of Manitoba and the NorthWest Territories, Joseph Albert Norbert Provencher, Esquire, and the undersigned S. J. DAWSON, Commissioner, PAY-BA-MA-CHAS, his x mark, RE-BA-QUIN, his x mark, ME-TAS-SO-QUE-NE-SKANK, his x mark

NORTH-WEST ANGLE, LAKE OF THE WOODS, October 4th, A.D. 1873.

And whereas, having fully and deliberately discussed and considered the matter, the said Halfbreeds have elected to join in the treaty made between the Indians and Her Majesty, at the NorthWest Angle of the Lake of the Woods, on the third day of October, 1873, and have expressed a desire thereto, and to become subject to the terms and conditions thereof in all respects saving as hereinafter set forth.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

572

Treaty 3, 1871

It is now hereby agreed upon by and between the said parties hereto (this agreement, however, to be subject in all respects to approval and confirmation by the Government, without which the same shall be considered as void and of no effect), as follows, that is to say: The Half-breeds, through Nicholas Chatelaine, their Chief above named, as representing them herein, agree as follows, that is to say:That they hereby fully and voluntarily surrender to Her Majesty the Queen to be held by Her Majesty and Her successors for ever, any and all claim, right, title or interest which they, by virtue of their Indian blood, have or possess in the lands or territories above described, and solemnly promise to observe all the terms and conditions of the said treaty (a copy whereof, duly certified by the Honourable the Secretary of State of the Dominion has been this day placed in the hands of the said Nicholas Chatelaine). In consideration of which Her Majesty agrees as follows, that is to say: That the said Half-breeds, keeping and observing on their part the terms and conditions of the said treaty shall receive compensation in the way of reserves of land, payments, annuities and presents, in manner similar to that set forth in the several respects for the Indians in the said treaty; it being understood, however, that any sum expended annually by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Half-breeds shall not be taken out of the fifteen hundred dollars set apart by the treaty for the purchase annually of those articles for the Indians, but shall be in addition thereto, and shall be a pro rata amount in the proportion of the number of Halfbreeds parties hereto to the number of Indians embraced in the treaty; and it being further understood that the said Half-breeds shall be entitled to all the benefits of the said treaty as from the date thereof, as regards payments and annuities, in the same manner as if they had been present and had become parties to the same at the time of the making thereof. And whereas the said Half-breeds desire the land set forth as tracts marked (A) and (B) on the rough diagram attached hereto, and marked with the initials of the parties aforementioned to this agreement, as their reserves (in all eighteen square miles), to which they would be entitled under the provisions of the

www.abc-clio.com

treaty, the same is hereby agreed to on the part of the Government. Should this agreement be approved by the Government, the reserves as above to be surveyed in due course. Signed at Fort Francis, the day and date above mentioned, in presence of us as witnesses: A. R. TILLIE, CHAS. S. CROWE, W. B. RICHARDSON, L. KITTSON, J. S. DENNIS, [L.S.], NICHOLAS CHATELAINE. [L.S.], his x mark ADHESION OF LAC SEUL INDIANS TO TREATY No. 3 LAC SEUL, 9th June, 1874. We, the Chiefs and Councillors of Lac Seul, Seul, Trout and Sturgeon Lakes, subscribe and set our marks, that we and our followers will abide by the articles of the Treaty made and concluded with the Indians at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods, on the third day of October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventythree, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, Hon. Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba and the North-West Territories, Joseph Albert N. Provencher, and Simon J. Dawson, of the one part, and the Saulteaux tribes of Ojibewas Indians, inhabitants of the country as defined by the Treaty aforesaid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Indian Agent and the Chiefs and Councillors have hereto set their hands at Lac Seul, on the 9th day of June, 1874. (Signed) ACKEMENCE, Councillors. his x mark MAINEETAINEQUIRE, his x mark NAH-KEE-JECKWAHE, his x mark The whole Treaty explained by R. J. N. PITHER. Witnesses: (Signed) JAMES McKENZIE, OUIS KITTSON, NICHOLAS CHATELAINE, his x mark, R. J. N. PITHER, Indian Agent, JOHN CROMARTY, Chief. his x mark

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 4, 1874

Treaty 4, 1874 Sept. 15, 1874 Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians at the Qu’Appelle and Fort Ellice ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION FOR TREATY No. 4 On a Memorandum, dated 20th July 1874, from the Honorable the Minister of the Interior, stating that he has had before him a Minute of the Council of the North West of the 14th March last, recommending that Treaties should this year be concluded with the Tribes of Indians inhabiting the Territory therein indicated, lying West of the Boundary of Treaty No. 2, and between the International Boundary Line and the Saskatchewan. That he has also had before him several Despatches from the Lieutenant Governor of later date urging the necessity of these Treaties. That looking to these representations and to the fact that the Mounted Police Force is now moving into the Territory in question with a view of taking up their winter quarters at Fort Pelly, and considering the operations of the Boundary Commission which are continually moving westward into the Indian Country, and also the steps which are being taken in connection with the proposed Telegraph Line from Fort Garry westward, all which proceedings are calculated to further unsettle and excite the Indian mind, already in a disturbed condition; he recommends that three Commissioners be appointed by His Excellency the Governor General for the purpose of making Treaties during the current year with such of the Indians Bands as they may find it expedient to deal with, inhabiting the portion of the North-West Territories which may be approximately described as lying between the Westerly Boundary of Treaty No. 2 and the 110th degree of West Longitude, and bounded on the South by the International Boundary Line, and on the North by Lake Winnipeg, and by the Saskatchewan River, including a strip of country ten miles north of that River to the Forks and thence following the South branch of the said River until it meets the 110th degree of West Longitude. The Minister further recommends that the Commissioners to be appointed for this purpose be instructed to confer with the Lieutenant Governor of the North

www.abc-clio.com

573

West Territories on the subject of the Treaties, and that, in the event of permanent annuities being granted to the Tribes with whom Treaties may be made, such annuities should not be fixed at a higher rate than those sanctioned by the Treaties already concluded with the Indians of the North West. The Committee submit the above recommendation for Your Excellency’s approval. (sgd.) L. S. HUNTINGDON. Approved 23 July, 1874 Dufferin APPROVAL OF TREATY No. 4 On a Memorandum dated 29th October, 1874 from the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie submitting for the consideration of Your Excellency in Council Copies of a Treaty and supplementary Treaty with the Cree, Saulteaux and other Indians inhabiting the Territory affected by such Treaty, the former concluded on the 15th September last, and the latter on the 21st September last, by His Honor the Lieutenant Governor of the North West Territories, the Hon. the Minister of the Interior, and W. J. Christie, Esquire, of Brockville, Ont., the Commissioners specially appointed for that purpose, under Orders in Council dated 23rd July and 26th August respectively. Mr. Mackenzie states that the Territory covered by the Treaties may be approximately described as lying between the Western boundary of Treaty No.2 and the 1101/2 degree of West Longitude, and bounded on the South by the International Boundary, and on the North by the Red Deer River, and its Lakes, Red Deer and Etoimami, to the source of its Western Branch thence in a straight line to the source of the Northern Branch of the Qu’Appelle, thence along and including said stream to the Forks near Long Lake; thence along and including the Valley of the West Branch of the Qu’Appelle to the South Saskatchewan, thence along and including said River to the mouth of Maple Creek, thence along said Creek, to a point opposite the Cypress Hills, thence due South to the Boundary Line, and that the Area of the Territory above described comprises about 50,000 Square Miles. That the terms of the Treaties are nearly identical with those of the Treaty concluded last year at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

574

Treaty 4, 1874

That the principal conditions of the Treaties may be briefly stated as follows: • 1st A Money present to each Chief of $25; to each Headman not exceeding four in each Band $15 and to every other Indian, man, woman and Child in the Band $12. • 2nd An Annual payment in perpetuity, of the same sums to the Chiefs and Headmen (not exceeding four in each Band) and $5 to every other man, woman and Child in the Band. • 3rd Certain trifling presents of clothing every third year, to the Chiefs and Headmen. • 4th A supply of Ammunition and twine every year to the value of $750. • 5th Presents of Agricultural implements, Cattle, grain, Carpenter’s tools, etc., proportioned to the number of families in the Band actually engaged in farming. • 6th Reserves to be selected of the same extent in proportion to the numbers of the Bands, and on the same conditions as in the previous Treaty. • 7th Schools to be established on each Reserve as soon as the Indians settle thereon. • 8th Intoxicating liquors to be excluded from the Reserve. • Mr. Mackenzie states that the Treaties appear to him to be satisfactory and he therefore recommends that they be approved by Your Excellency in Council. He further submits that he is of opinion that the satisfactory conclusion of the Treaties is mainly due to patience, firmness, tact and ability displayed by the Commissioners in the conduct of the negotiations. The Committee concur in the foregoing Report and recommend and advise that the Treaties be approved and accepted and be enrolled in the usual manner. signed by: A. Mackenzie. Approved 4th November 1876 Dufferin. TREATY No. 4 ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this fifteenth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Gov-

www.abc-clio.com

ernor of the Province of Manitoba and the NorthWest Territories; the Honourable David Laird, Minister of the Interior, and William Joseph Christie, Esquire, of Brockville, Ontario, of the one part; and the Cree, Saulteaux and other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described by their Chiefs and Headmen, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said territory have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration, trade and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty and between them and Her Majesty’s other subjects, and that Her Indian people may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in Council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them the said Indians, have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say: Ka-ki-shi-way, or “Loud Voice,” (Qu’Appelle River); Pis-qua, or “The Plain” (Leech Lake); Ka-wey-ance, or “The Little Boy” (Leech Lake); Ka-kee-na-wup, or “One that sits like an Eagle” (Upper Qu’Appelle Lakes); Kus-keetew-mus-coo-mus-qua, or “Little Black Bear” (Cypress Hills); Ka-ne-on-us-ka-tew, or “One that walks on four claws” (Little Touchwood Hills); Cauah-ha-cha-pew, or “Making ready the Bow” (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Kii-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 4, 1874

si-caw-ah-chuck, or “Day-Star” (South side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Ka-na-ca-toose, “The Poor Man” (Touchwood Hills and Qu’Appelle Lakes); Ka-kii-wis-ta-haw, or “Him that flies around” (towards the Cypress Hills); Cha-ca-chas (Qu’Appelle River); Wah-pii-moose-too-siis, or “The White Calf” (or Pus-coos) (Qu’Appelle River); Gabriel Cote, or Mee-may, or “The Pigeon” (Fort Pelly). And thereupon in open council the different bands, having presented the men of their choice to the said Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen, for the purpose aforesaid, of the respective bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. And whereas the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say:— The Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen, and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:— Commencing at a point on the United States frontier due south of the northwestern point of the Moose Mountains; thence due north to said point of said mountains: thence in a north-easterly course to a point two miles due west of Fort Ellice; thence in a line parallel with and two miles westward from the Assiniboine River to the mouth of the Shell River; thence parallel to the said river and two miles distant therefrom to its source; thence in a straight line to a point on the western shore of Lake Winnipegosis, due west from the most northern extremity of Waterhen Lake; thence east to the centre of Lake Winnipegosis; thence northwardly, through the middle of the said lake (including Birch Island), to the mouth of Red Deer River; thence westwardly and southwestwardly along and including the said Red Deer River and its lakes, Red Deer and Etoimaini, to the source of its western branch; thence in a straight line to the source of the northern branch of the Qu’Appelle; thence along and including said stream to the forks near Long Lake; thence along and including the valley of the west branch of

www.abc-clio.com

575

the Qu’Appelle to the South Saskatchewan; thence along and including said river to the mouth of Maple Creek; thence southwardly along said creek to a point opposite the western extremity of the Cypress Hills; thence due south to the international boundary; thence east along the said boundary to the place of commencement. Also all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wheresoever situated within Her Majesty’s NorthWest Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees, through the said Commissioners, to assign reserves for said Indians, such reserves to be selected by officers of Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada appointed for that purpose, after conference with each band of the Indians, and to be of sufficient area to allow one square mile for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; provided, however, that it be understood that, if at the time of the selection of any reserves, as aforesaid, there are any settlers within the bounds of the lands reserved for any band, Her Majesty retains the right to deal with such settlers as She shall deem just, so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted to the Indians; and provided, further, that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any part thereof, or any interest or right therein, or appurtenant thereto, may be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by the said Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians, with the consent of the Indians entitled thereto first had and obtained, but in no wise shall the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to sell or otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to them as reserves. In view of the satisfaction with which the Queen views the ready response which Her Majesty’s Indian subjects have accorded to the invitation of Her said Commissioners to meet them on this occasion, and also in token of their general good conduct and behaviour, She hereby, through Her Commissioners, makes the Indians of the bands here represented a present, for each Chief of twenty-five dollars in cash, a coat and a Queen’s silver medal; for each Headman, not exceeding four in each band, fifteen dollars in cash and a coat; and for every other man, woman and child twelve dollars in cash; and for those here assembled some powder, shot, blankets, calicoes, strouds and other articles.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

576

Treaty 4, 1874

As soon as possible after the execution of this treaty Her Majesty shall cause a census to be taken of all the Indians inhabiting the tract hereinbefore described, and shall, next year, and annually afterwards for ever, cause to be paid in cash at some suitable season to be duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places to be appointed for that purpose, within the territory ceded, each Chief twenty-five dollars; each Headman not exceeding four to a band, fifteen dollars; and to every other Indian man, woman and child, five dollars per head; such payment to be made to the heads of families for those belonging thereto, unless for some special reason it be found objectionable. Her Majesty also agrees that each Chief and each Headman, not to exceed four in each band, once in every three years during the term of their offices shall receive a suitable suit of clothing, and that yearly and every year She will cause to be distributed among the different bands included in the limits of this treaty powder, shot, ball and twine, in all to the value of seven hundred and fifty dollars; and each Chief shall receive hereafter, in recognition of the closing of the treaty, a suitable flag. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that the following articles shall be supplied to any band thereof who are now actually cultivating the soil, or who shall hereafter settle on their reserves and commence to break up the land, that is to say: two hoes, one spade, one scythe and one axe for every family so actually cultivating, and enough seed wheat, barley, oats and potatoes to plant such land as they have broken up; also one plough and two harrows for every ten families so cultivating as aforesaid, and also to each Chief for the use of his band as aforesaid, one yoke of oxen, one bull, four cows, a chest of ordinary carpenter’s tools, five hand saws, five augers, one cross-cut saw, one pit-saw, the necessary files and one grindstone, all the aforesaid articles to be given, once for all, for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians. Further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school in the reserve allotted to each band as soon as they settle on said reserve and are prepared for a teacher. Further, Her Majesty agrees that within the boundary of the Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by the Government of the Dominion of

www.abc-clio.com

Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects, inhabiting the reserves, or living elsewhere within the North-West Territories, from the evil effects of intoxicating liquor, shall be strictly enforced. And further, Her Majesty agrees that Her said Indians shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining or other purposes, under grant or other right given by Her Majesty’s said Government. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indian subjects that such sections of the reserves above indicated as may at any time be required for public works or building of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land or money for the area of the reserve so appropriated. And the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law, that they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and between themselves and other tribes of Indians and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, Half-breeds, or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 4, 1874

IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said Commissioners, and the said Indian Chiefs and Headmen, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at Qu’Appelle, this day and year herein first above written. Signed by the Chiefs and Headmen within named in presence of the following witnesses, the same having been first read and explained by Charles Pratt: W. OSBORNE SMITH, C.M.G., Lt.-Col. D.A.G. Commg, Dominion Forces in North-West., PASCAL BRELAND, EDWARD MCKAY, CHARLES PRATT, PIERRE POITRAS, BAPTIST DAVIS, his x mark, PIERRE DENOMME, his x mark, JOSEPH McKAY, DONALD McDONALD, A. McDONALD, Capt. Provl. Battn. Infantry, GEO. W. STREET, Ens. Provl. Battn. Infantry, ALFRED CODD, M.D., Surgeon Provl. Battn. Infantry, W. M. HERCHMER, Captain, C. DE COUYES, Ensign, JOS. POITRON, x, M. G. DICKIESON, Private Secy. Min. of Interior, PETER LAPIERRE, HELEN M. McLEAN, FLORA GARRIOGH, JOHN COTTON, Lt. Canadian Artillery, JOHN ALLAN, Lt. Provl. Battn. Infantry, ALEXANDER MORRIS, Lt.-Gov. North-West Territories, DAVID LAIRD, Indian Commissioner, WILLIAM J. CHRISTIE, his x mark, KA-KII-SHI-WAY, his x mark, PIS-QUA, his x mark, KA-WEZAUCE, his x mark, KA-KEE-NA-WUP, his x mark, KUS-KEE-TEW-MUS-COO-MUS-QUA, his x mark, KA-NE-ON-US-KA-TEW, his x mark, CAN-AH-HA-CHA-PEU, his x mark, KII-SI-CAW-AH-CHUCK, his x mark, KA-WA-CA-TOOSE, his x mark, KA-KU-WIS-TA-HAW, his x mark,

www.abc-clio.com

577

CHA-CA-CHAS, his x mark, WA-PII-MOOSE-TOO-SUS, his x mark, GABRIEL COTÉ OR MEE-MAY, his x mark We, members of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians, having had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of September instant, between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Indians, and other Indians at Qu’Appelle lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at Qu’Appelle lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs, and other therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the band which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us and the said band which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the said band which we represent, have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof also all our right, title and privilege whatsoever, to all other lands, wherever situated, whether within the limits of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and reserves of the said treaty, signed at the Qu’Appelle lakes, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves, and the band which we represent, had been originally contracting parties thereto and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chief and Headman have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Fort Ellice, this twenty-first day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

578

Treaty 4, 1874

Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by Joseph Robillard:

ARCH. McDONALD, GEORGE FLETT, A. MAXWELL, DAVID ARMIT, HENRY McKAY, ELLEN McDONALD, MARY ARMIT, ALEXANDER MORRIS, Lt.-Gov. North-West Territories, DAVID LAIRD, Indian Commissioner, W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Commissioner, WAY-WA-SE-CA-POW, or the MAN PROUD OF STANDING UPRIGHT, his x mark, OTA-MA-KOO-EWIN, or SHA-POUS-ETUNG’S-FIRST SON, THE MAN WHO STANDS ON THE EARTH, his x mark

We, members of the Cree, Saulteaux and Stonie Tribes of Indians, having had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of September last between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Indians, and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and several Indian Chiefs and others therein contained, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby, for ourselves and the bands which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty having extended to us and the said bands which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the said bands which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; also, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever.

www.abc-clio.com

And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and reserves of the said treaty, signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfill all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we, ourselves, and the bands which we represent, had been originally contracting parties thereto, and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Qu’Appelle Lakes this eighth day of September, in the year or Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by William the second McKay. WILLIAM S. McKAY, ARCH. McDONALD, PASCAL BRELAND, WILLIAM WAGNER, W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Commissioner, M. G. DICKIESON, Acting Ind’n Com’r., W. F. WRIGHT, CHEE x CUK, his x mark We, members of the Cree, Saulteaux and Stonie Tribes of Indians, having had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of September last between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Indians and other Indians at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the bands which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty having extended to us, and the said bands which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the said bands which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 4, 1874

described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty, and every part thereof; also, all our right, title, and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty formerly made, of hereafter to be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and reserves of the said treaty signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Qu’Appelle Lakes this ninth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by Charles Pratt. Witness CHARLES PRATT, Witness ARCH. McDONALD, Witness JOSEPH READER, PASCAL BRELAND, W. J. CHRISTIE, Ind. Comr., M. G. DICKIESON, Ind. Comr., W. F. WRIGHT, WAH-PEE-MAKWA, his x mark, THE WHITE BEAR, his x mark, OKANES, his x mark, PAYEPOT, his x mark, LE CROUP DE PHEASANT, his x mark, KITCHI-KAH-ME-WIN, his x mark

Indians and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the band which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty having extended to us and the said band which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the said band which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; also our right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors for ever. And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payment and reserves of the said treaty signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the band which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto, and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Swan Lake, this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by George Brass.

We, members of the Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians, having had communication of the treaty made on the 15th day of September, 1874, between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux

www.abc-clio.com

579

ARCH. McDONALD, Witness, DONALD McDONALD, Witness, GEORGE BRASS, Witness, his x mark, W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Comr.,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

580

Treaty 4, 1874

M. G. DICKIESON, Acting Indian Comr., OW-TAH-PEE-KA-KAW, his x mark, KII-SHI-KOUSE,his x mark

Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first read and explained by A. McKAY:

We, members of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians, having had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of September, A.D. 1874, between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux Indians and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the band which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty having extended to us and the said band which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the said band which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; also, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and reserves of the said treaty signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes as therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfill all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the band which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto, and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the said Indian Chief and Headmen have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Fort Pelly, this twenty-fourth day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six.

www.abc-clio.com

AND. McDONALD, ALEX. LORD RUSSELL, GEORGE FLETT, HUGH McBEATH, A. McKAY, W. H. NAGLE, OO-ZA-WASK-OO-QUIN-APE, (or YELLOW QUILL), his x mark, KENISTIN (or CREE), his x mark, NE-PIN-AWA (or SUMMER FUR), his x mark We, members of the Assiniboine Tribe of Indians, having had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree Saulteaux Indians, and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at the councils held at Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves, and the band which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the treaty being extended to us and the said band which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the bands which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; also our right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made with the Assiniboine Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her Heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several provisions and the payment in the following manner, viz.: That those who have not already received payment receive this year the sums of twelve dollars for the year 1876, which shall be considered their first year of payment, and five dollars for the year 1877, making together the sum of seventeen dollars apiece to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

those who have never been paid, and five dollars per annum for every subsequent year, and also the reserves of the said treaty signed at Qu’Appelle Lakes, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and agree to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the band which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had been present and attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Major James M. Walsh, Inspector of North-West Mounted Police, in command at Forth Walsh, and the said Indian Chiefs and Headmen, have hereunto set their hands at Fort Walsh, this twenty-fifth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained by Constant Provost to the Indians. J. H. McILLREE, Sub-Inspector, PERCY REGINALD NEALE, Sub-Inspector, N.W.M.P, J. M. WALSH, LONG LODGE TEPEE HOSKA, his x mark, THE ONE THAT FETCHED THE COAT, his x mark, WICH-A-WOS-TAKA, his x mark, THE POOR MAN, his x mark

tenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the said country have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioners, been convened at meetings at Beren’s River and Norway House to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. AND WHEREAS the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. AND WHEREAS the Indians of said tract, duly convened in council as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them the said Indians, have thereupon named the following persons for that purpose, that is to say:

Treaty 5, 1875 Sept. 24, 1875 Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians at Beren’s River and Norway House with Adhesions ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River the 20th day of September, and at Norway House the 24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventyfive, between “Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen” of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieu-

www.abc-clio.com

581

For the Indians within the Beren’s River region and their several bands: Nah-wee-kee-sick-quah-yash, Chief; Kah-nah-wah-kee-wee-nin and Nah-keequan-nay-yash, Councillors, and Pee-wah-roo-weenin, of Poplar River; Councillors for the Indians within the Norway House region and their several bands: David Rundle, Chief, James Cochrane, Harry Constatag and Charles Pisequinip, Councillors; and Ta-pas-ta-num, or Donald William Sinclair Ross, Chief, James Garrioch and Proud McKay, Councillors.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

582

Treaty 5, 1875

AND THEREUPON, in open council, the different bands having presented their Chiefs to the said Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen for the purposes aforesaid of the respective Bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners then and there received and acknowledged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say: The Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Commencing at the north corner or junction of Treaties Nos. 1 and 3; then easterly along the boundary of Treaty No. 3 to the “Height of Land,” at the northeast corner of the said treaty limits, a point dividing the waters of the Albany and Winnipeg Rivers; thence due north along the said “Height of Land “ to a point intersected by the 53° of north latitude; and thence north-westerly to “Favourable Lake”; thence following the east shore of said lake to its northern limit; thence north-westerly to the north end of Lake Winnipegoosis; then westerly to the “Height of Land” called “Robinson’s Portage”; thence north-westerly to the east end of “Cross Lake”; thence north-westerly crossing “Foxes Lake”; thence north-westerly to the north end of “Split Lake”; thence south-westerly to “Pipestone Lake,” on “Burntwood River “; thence south-westerly to the western point of “John Scott’s Lake”; thence southwesterly to the north shore of “Beaver Lake”; thence south-westerly to the west end of “Cumberland Lake”; thence due south to the “Saskatchewan River”; thence due south to the north-west corner of the northern limits of Treaty No. 4, including all territory within the said limits, and all islands on all lakes within the said limits, as above described; and it being also understood that in all cases where lakes

www.abc-clio.com

form the treaty limits, ten miles from the shore of the lake should be included in the treaty. And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the North-west Territories or in any other Province or portion of Her Majesty’s dominions situated and being within the Dominion of Canada; The tract comprised within the lines above described, embracing an area of one hundred thousand square miles, be the same more or less; To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen, and Her successors forever; And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands, due respect being had to lands at present cultivated by the said Indians, and other reserves for the benefit of the said Indians, to be administered and dealt with for them by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, provided all such reserves shall not exceed in all one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families-in manner following, that is to say: For the Band of “Saulteaux, in the Beren’s River” region, now settled or who may within two years settle therein, a reserve commencing at the outlet of Beren’s River into Lake Winnipeg, and extending along the shores of said lake, and up said river and into the interior behind said lake and river, so as to comprehend one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five, a reasonable addition being, however, to be made by Her Majesty to the extent of the said reserve for the inclusion in the tract so reserved of swamp, but reserving the free navigation of the said lake and river, and free access to the shores and waters thereof, for Her Majesty and all Her subjects, and expecting thereout such land as may have been granted to or stipulated to be held by the “Hudson Bay Company,” and also such land as Her Majesty or Her successors, may in Her good pleasure, see fit to grant to the Mission established at or near Beren’s River by the Methodist Church of Canada, for a church, school-house, parsonage, burial ground and farm, or other mission purposes; and to the Indians residing at Poplar River, falling into Lake Winnipeg north of Beren’s River, a reserve not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, respecting, as much as possible, their present improvements:

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

And inasmuch as a number of the Indians now residing in and about Norway House of the band of whom David Rundle is Chief are desirous of removing to a locality where they can cultivate the soil, Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees to lay aside a reserve on the west side of Lake Winnipeg, in the vicinity of Fisher River, so as to give one hundred acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, who shall remove to the said locality within “three years,” it being estimated that ninety families or thereabout will remove within the said period, and that a reserve will be laid aside sufficient for that or the actual number; and it is further agreed that those of the band who remain in the vicinity of “Norway House” shall retain for their own use their present gardens, buildings and improvements, until the same be departed with by the Queen’s Government, with their consent first had and obtained, for their individual benefit, if any value can be realized therefore: And with regard to the Band of Wood Indians, of whom Ta-pas-ta-num, or Donald William Sinclair Ross, is Chief, a reserve at Otter Island, on the west side of Cross Lake, of one hundred and sixty acres for each family of five or in that proportion for smaller families-reserving, however, to Her Majesty, Her successors and Her subjects the free navigation of all lakes and rivers and free access to the shores thereof; Provided, however, that Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any band as She shall deem fit, and also that the aforesaid reserves of land or any interest therein may be sold or otherwise disposed of by Her Majesty’s Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained. And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, She hereby, through Her Commissioners, makes them a present of five dollars for each man, woman and child belonging to the bands here represented, in extinguishment of all claims heretofore preferred. And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it.

www.abc-clio.com

583

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves, or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes, by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indians that such sections of the reserves above indicated as may at any time be required for public works or buildings, of what nature soever, may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made for the value of any improvements thereon. And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distributing them in families, and shall in every year ensuing the date hereof, at some period in each year to be duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places to be appointed for that purpose within the territory ceded, pay to each Indian person the sum of five dollars per head yearly. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that the sum of five hundred dollars per annum shall be yearly and every year expended by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition, and twine for nets, for the use of the said Indians, in manner following, that is to say: in the reasonable discretion as regards the distribution thereof among the Indians inhabiting the several reserves or

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

584

Treaty 5, 1875

otherwise included therein of Her Majesty’s Indian Agent have the supervision of this treaty. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that the following articles shall be supplied to any band of the said Indians who are now cultivating the soil, or who shall hereafter commence to cultivate the land, that is to say: Two hoes for every family actually cultivating; also one spade per family as aforesaid; one plough for every ten families as aforesaid; five harrows for every twenty families as aforesaid; one scythe for every family as aforesaid, and also one axe; and also one cross-cut saw, one hand-saw, one pit-saw, the necessary files, one grindstone, and one auger for each band; and also for each Chief, for the use of his band, one chest of ordinary carpenter’s tools; also for each band enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and oats to plant the land actually broken up for cultivation by such band; also for each band one yoke of oxen, one bull and four cows all the aforesaid articles to be given once for all for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians.

tracts, or any part thereof; and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at “Beren’s River” this twentieth day of September, A.D. 1875, and at Norway House on the twenty-fourth day of the month and year herein first above named. Signed by the Chiefs within named in presence of the following witnesses, the same having been first read and explained by the Honourable James McKay: THOS. HOWARD, A. G. JACKES, M.D., CHRISTINE MORRIS, E. C. MORRIS, ELIZABETH YOUNG, WILLIAM McKAY, JOHN Mc KAY, EGERTON RYERSON YOUNG, ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.], JAMES McKAY, [L.S.], NAH-WEE-KEE-SICK-QUAH-YASH, otherwise, JACOB BERENS, Chief, his x mark, KAH-NAH-WAH-KEE-WEE-NIN, otherwise, ANTOINE GOUIN, his x mark, NAH-KEE-QUAN-NAY-YASH, his x mark, PEE-WAH-ROO-WEE-NIN, his x mark, Councillors.

It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians that each Chief duly recognized as such shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five dollars per annum, and each subordinate officer, not exceeding three for each band, shall receive fifteen dollars per annum; and each such Chief and subordinate officer as aforesaid shall also receive, once every three years, a suitable suit of clothing; and each Chief shall receive, in recognition of the closing of the treaty, a suitable flag and medal. And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law, and they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other Tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said

www.abc-clio.com

Signed at Norway House by the Chiefs and Councillors hereunto his subscribing in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first read and explained by the Honourable James McKay:

ABC-CLIO

RODK. ROSS, JOHN H. RUTTAN, Methodist Minister, O. GRINDER, Methodist Min., D. C. McTAVISH, ALEX. SINCLAIR, L. C. McTAVISH, CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS, E. C. MORRIS, A. G. JACKES, M.D., THOS. HOWARD.,

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

ALEX. MORRIS, L.G., [L.S.], JAMES McKAY, [L.S.], DAVID RUNDLE, Chief. his x mark, JAMES COCHRANE, his x mark, HARRY CONSTATAG, his x mark, CHARLES PISEQUINIP, Councillors, his x mark, TA-PAS-TA-NUM, or, DONALD WILLIAM, his x mark, SINCLAIR ROSS, Chief, his x mark, GEORGE GARRIOCK, his x mark, PROUD McKAY,Councillors. his x mark. We, the Band of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians residing at the mouth of the Saskatchewan River, on both sides thereof, having had communication of the foregoing treaty, hereby, and in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the Queen and Her heirs and successors for ever. And Her Majesty agrees, through the said Commissioners, to assign a reserve of sufficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families-such reserve to be laid off and surveyed next year on the south side of the River Saskatchewan. And having regard to the importance of the land where the said Indians are now settled in respect of the purposes of the navigation of the said river and transport in connection therewith, and otherwise, and in view of the fact that many of the said Indians have now houses and gardens on the other side of the river and elsewhere which they will abandon, Her Majesty agrees, through Her said Commissioners, to grant a sum of five hundred dollars to the said Band to be paid in equitable proportions to such of them as have houses, to assist them in removing their houses to the said reserve or building others. And the said Indians, represented herein by their Chiefs and Councillors, presented as such by the Band, do hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and other benefits as stated in the said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations,

www.abc-clio.com

585

obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves had been originally contracting parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chief and Councillors have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at the Grand Rapids, this twenty-seventh day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. Signed by the parties in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by the Honourable James McKay. THOS. HOWARD, RODK. ROSS, E. C. MORRIS, A. G. JACKES, M.D., ALEX. MATHESON, JOSEPH HOUSTON, CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS, ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.], JAMES McKAY, [L.S.], PETER BEARDY, Chief, his x mark, JOSEPH ATKINSON, his x mark, ROBERT S. ANDERSON, Councillors. his x mark. ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA INDIANS MEMORANDUM. The Queen’s Indian Commissioners having met Thick-foot and a portion of the Island Band of Indians at Wa-pang or Dog-head Island on the 28th day of September, A.D. 1875, request him to notify the Island Indians and those of Jack-head Point to meet at Wa-pang an Indian Agent next summer to receive payments under the treaty which they have made with the Indians of Norway House, Beren’s River, Grand Rapids and Lake Winnipeg, and in which they are included, at a time of which they will be notified, and to be prepared then to designate their Chief and two Councillors. The Commissioners have agreed to give some of the “Norway House” Indians a reserve at Fisher Creek, and they will give land to the Island Indians at the same place.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

586

Treaty 5, 1875

Given at Wa-pang this 28th day of September, A.D. 1875, under our hands. ALEX. MORRIS, L.G., JAMES McKAY

their Chief and Councillors, have hereunto subscript and set their hands at Winnipeg, the seventh day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred seventy-six. Witness: J. A. N. PROVENCHER, JAS. F. GRAHAM, H. MARTINEAU, J. P. WRIGHT, JAMES BIRD, his x mark, JOSEPH SAYER, his x mark, JOHN SAYER. his x mark

I accept payments under the treaty for myself and those who may adhere to me, and accept the same and all its provisions as a Principal Indian, and agree to notify the Indians as above written.

THICK-FOOT, his x mark

WA-PANG, September 28th, 1875. Witness: THOS. HOWARD, RODK. ROSS

ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA INDIANS We, the Band of Saulteaux Tribe of Indians residing at the mouth of Black River, on the east shore of Lake Winnipeg, having had communication of the treaty made and concluded at Beren’s River the 20th day of September, 1875, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, by Her Commissioners the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, and the different tribes of Indians and inhabitants of the country within the limits mentioned in the said treaty, hereby, and in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our rights, titles and privileges whatsoever which we may have or enjoy in the territory descript in the said treaty, and every part thereof-and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the Queen, and heirs and successors forever. And Her Majesty agrees through the Acting Indian Superintendent, to assign the reserve of sufficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for smaller or larger families, on the banks of the said Black River. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Acting Indian Superintendent and the said Indians, represented by

www.abc-clio.com

ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA AND CREE INDIANS ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River on the 20th day of September and at Norway House the 24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part: We, the Band of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, residing at the “Pas,” on the Saskatchewan River, Birch River, the Pas Mountain and File Lake, and known as “The Pas Band”; and at Cumberland Island, Sturgeon River, Angling River, Pine Bluff, Beaver Lake and the Ratty Country, and known as “The Cumberland Band”; and at Moose Lake and Cedar Lake, and known as “The Moose Lake Band,” having had communication of the aforesaid treaty, of which a true copy is hereunto annexed, hereby, and in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our rights, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the Queen and Her heirs and successors forever.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

And Her Majesty agrees, through Her representative as hereinafter named, to assign a reserve of sufficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, such reserves to be subject to the approval of Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, and to be laid off and surveyed as soon as may be found practicable, in manner following, that is to say: For the “Pas” Band, a reserve on both sides of the Saskatchewan River at the “Pas”; but as the area of land fit for cultivation in that vicinity is very limited, and insufficient to allow of a reserve being laid off to meet the requirements of the Band, that the balance of such reserve shall be at “Birch River” and the “Pas Mountain”; for the “Cumberland Band” a reserve at “Cumberland Island,” and as the land fit for cultivation there is also limited and insufficient to meet their requirements, that the balance of that reserve shall be at a point between the “Pine Bluff” and “Lime Stone Rock,” on “Cumberland Lake”; and for the “Moose Lake Band” a reserve at the north end of “Moose Lake,” called Little Narrows-reserving, however, to Her Majesty, Her heirs, successors, and Her subjects, the free navigation of all lakes and rivers, and free access to the shores thereof, and excepting thereout such land as may have been granted to or stipulated to be held by the Hudson’s Bay Company at the Pas and Cumberland Island, and also such land as Her Majesty or Her successors may in their good pleasure see fit to grant to the missions established at the “Pas” and Cumberland Island by the Church Missionary Society, and the mission established at Cumberland Island by the Roman Catholic Church; and provided Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, reserve the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any Band as She shall deem fit. And the said Indians, represented herein by their Chiefs and Councillors, presented as such by the Bands, do hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments, and other benefits, as stated in the said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves had been originally contracting parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas Howard, acting herein for Her Majesty under special

www.abc-clio.com

587

authority of the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and of the Northwest Territories, and Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Manitoba Superintendency, and the said Chiefs and Councillors, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at the “Pas,” on the Saskatchewan River, this seventh day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six. Signed by the Chiefs and Councillors within named, in the presence of the following witnesses, the treaty and this adhesion, having been first read and explained by the Rev. Henry Cochrane: H. BELLANGER, HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary, CHARLES D. RICKARDS, CHARLES ADAMS, C. Clk., H.B. Co., WALTER R. NURSEY, JOHN CLEMONS, THOMAS NIXON, Jr., ROBERT BALLENDINE, A. M. MUCKLE, J.P., THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.], “Pas” Band JOHN CONSTANT, Chief, his x mark, JAMES COOK, Sr., his x mark, JOHN BELL, Jr., his x mark, PETER BELL, his x mark, DONALD COOK, Sr., his x mark, Councillors “Cumberland” Band JOHN COCHRANE, Chief, his x mark, PETER CHAPMAN, his x mark, ALBERT FLETT, his x mark, Councillors “Moose Lake” Band O-TIN-IK-IM-AW, Chief, his x mark, MA-IK-WUH-E-HA-POW, his x mark, WA-ME-KWUW-UH-OP, his x mark, KA-CHA-CHUCK-OOS, his x mark, Councillors ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA INDIANS ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River the 20th day of September, and at Norway House the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

588

Treaty 5, 1875

24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.

herein for Her Majesty, under special authority of the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Manitoba Superintendency, and the said Chief and Councillor, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at the Beren’s River, this fourth day of August, A.D. 1876. Signed by the Chief and Councillor within named in the presence of the following witnesses, the treaty and this adhesion having been first read and explained by the Rev. H. Cochrane

We, the Band of Saulteaux Indians residing in the vicinity of the Grand Rapids of the Beren’s River, having had communication of the aforesaid treaty, of which a true copy is hereunto annexed, hereby and in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the Queen, and Her heirs and successors forever.

HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary, JAMES FLETT, OWEN HUGHES, ALEXANDER BEGG, A. M. MUCKLE, J.P., GEO. COLDEE, THOMAS PRATT, WILLIAM McKAY, THOMAS NIXON, Jr., THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.], J. LESTOCK REID, [L.S.], NAH-WEE-KEE-SICK-QUAH-YASH, (Or JACOB BERENS, of Beren’s River), his x mark, Chief, NUN-AK-OW-AH-NUK-WAPE, his x mark, Councillor

And Her Majesty agrees, through Her representatives as hereinafter named to assign a reserve of sufficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, such reserve to be laid off and surveyed as soon as may be found practicable, at or near the Sandy Narrows of the Beren’s River, on both sides of the said river, reserving the free navigation of the said river, and free access to the shores thereof, to all Her Majesty’s subjects. And the said Indians, represented herein by their Chief and Councillor, presented as such by the Band, do hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and other benefits, as stated in the said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of the said Chief and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves had been originally contracting parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas Howard, and John Lestock Reid, Esquire, acting

www.abc-clio.com

ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River the 20th day of September, and at Norway House the 24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy five, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, LieutenantGovernor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part: We, the Band of Saulteaux Indians residing at or near the Big Island and the other islands in Lake Winnipeg, and also on the shores thereof, having had

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

communication of the aforesaid treaty, of which a true copy is hereunto annexed, hereby, and in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, surrender, and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the Queen, and Her heirs and successors forever. And Her Majesty agrees, through Her representatives as hereinafter named, to assign reserves of sufficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, such reserves to be selected for said Indians by a Dominion Land Surveyor, or other officer named for that purpose, with the approval of the said Indians, as soon as practicable. And the said Indians, represented herein by their Chief and Councillors, presented as such by the Band, do hereby agree to accept the several provisions, payments and other benefits as stated in the said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained, on the part of the said Chief and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed, and in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves had been originally contracting parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas Howard, and John Lestock Reid, Esquire, acting herein for Her Majesty, under special authority of the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and of the North-west Territories, and Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Manitoba Superintendency, and the said Chief and Councillors, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at Wapang, or Dog Head, Lake Winnipeg, this twenty-six day of July, A.D. 1876. Signed by the Chief and Councillors within named in the presence of the following witnesses, treaty and this adhesion having been first read and explained by the Rev. Henry Cochrane: W. W. KIRBY, Archdeacon of York, HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary,

www.abc-clio.com

589

ALEXANDER BEGG, WILLIAM LEACK, THOMAS NIXON, Jr., A. M. MUCKLE, J.P., THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.], J. LESTOCK REID, [L.S.], SA-KA-CHE-WAYAS, Chief, (Blood Vein River.), his x mark, KA-TUK-E-PIN-AIS or HARDISTY, (Big Island.), his x mark, THICKFOOT, (Dog Head.), his x mark, SANG-GWA-WA- KA-POW, or JAMES SINCLAIR, (Jack Head), his x mark, Councillors I, the Honourable Alexander Morris, LieutenantGovernor of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the treaty of which it purports to be a copy. Given under my hand and seal at Fort Garry, this nineteenth day of July, A.D. 1876. ALEXANDER MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.] ADHESION TO TREATY 5 BY SPLIT LAKE AND NELSON HOUSE. We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on behalf of ourselves and the other members of the Split Lake and Nelson House Bands of Indians, having had communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as Treaty No. 5, hereby in consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being understood and agreed that the said provisions shall not be retroactive, transfer, surrender, and relinquish to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said Treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors forever. And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and interest whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we represent hold and enjoy, or have held and enjoyed, of, in and to the territory within the following limits: All that portion of the North West Territories of Canada comprised within the following limits, that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

590

Treaty 5, 1875

is to say; commencing where the sixtieth parallel of latitude intersects the water’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay, thence West along the said parallel to the North East corner of the Province of Saskatchewan, thence south along the East boundary of the said Province, to the Northerly limit of the Indian treaty number Five, thence North Easterly, then South Easterly, then South Westerly and again South Easterly following the northerly limit of the said Treaty number Five to the intersection of a line drawn from the North East corner of the Province of Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence on the said line produced fifty miles; thence North twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty miles more or less to a point situated due South of Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point of commencement, together with all the foreshores, and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of land, and containing approximately an area of one hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred (133,400) square miles. And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, or hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether the said lands are situated in the North West Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of His Majesty, the King, His heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, payments and reserves promised to and accepted by the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and we agree in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had attached our signatures to the said treaty. And his Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves of land of a like proportionate area to those mentioned in the original Treaty No. 5.

www.abc-clio.com

And his Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Indians; and to further increase this annual grant in lieu of other supplies provided by the said treaty when this action is shown to be in the interests of the Indians. And his Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in addition to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of his Indians and in extinguishment of all their past claims. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Split Lake this Twenty-sixth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner. W. J. GRANT, M.D., Medical Officer, R. J. SPENCER, Clerk, H. McKAY, Commissioner, G. J. WARDNER, Constable, H. C. McLEOD, H. B. COY, J. M. THOMAS, C.F, [Name in Cree characters], WM. KECHE-KESIK, his x mark, [Name in Cree characters], CHARLES MORRIS, his x mark, [Name in Cree characters], ALBERT SPENCE, his x mark IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Nelson House this thirtieth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

591

explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner.

His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors forever.

W. J. GRANT, M.D., Medical Officer, R. J. SPENCER, Clerk, H. McKAY, Commissioner, G. J. WARDNER, Constable, FRED. A. SEMMENS, G. D. BUTLER, S/Sergt. R.N.W.M. Police, CHARLES GEORGE FOX, MissionaryAnglican, GEO THOS. VINCENT, ALEXANDER FLETT, WILLIAM ISBESTER, F. A. SEMMENS, [Name in Cree characters], PETER MOOSE, Chief, his x mark, [Name in Cree characters), MURDOCH HART, Councillor, his x mark, [Name in Cree characters], JAMES SPENCE, Councillor, his x mark

And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves of land of a like proportionate area to those mentioned in the original Treaty No. 5, or if thought advisable, to add to Reserves already set aside proportionate areas for the Indians now by this Instrument giving their adhesion to the said Treaty. And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original Treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Indians.

ADHESION TO TREATY No. 5 1908 —NORWAY HOUSE, CROSS LAKE, and FISHER RIVER. Dated respectively: 8th July 1908; 15th July 1908; 24th August 1908. WE, the undersigned principal men of the non-treaty Indians resident at the places hereinafter mentioned at which this adhesion has been signed having had communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as Treaty No. 5, hereby, in consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being understood and agreed that the said provisions shall not be retroactive, transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title, and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors forever. And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, or hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether the said lands are situated in the North West Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of

www.abc-clio.com

AND we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, payments and reserves promised to the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5, it being understood and agreed by us that the said benefits and payments shall not be retroactive. And we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and we agree in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had attached our signatures to the said treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF His Majesty’s Special Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Norway House this eighth day of July and at Cross Lake this fifteenth day of July and at Fisher River this twenty-fourth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight. Signed by the parties hereto in the resence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first mark explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, SANDY SANDERS, his x mark, PETER x MAHAM, his x mark, THOMAS x GRIEVE, his x mark, and 224 others at Norway House. DANIEL MESWAKUN, his x mark, DAVID MONEAS, his x mark, SIMON MONEAS, his x mark,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

592

Treaty 5, 1875

and 70 others at Cross Lake. PETER MURDO, his x mark, JAMES KIRKNESS, his x mark, and 17 others at Fisher River. Witnessed by R. J. SPENCER, Clerk. ADHESION TO TREATY No. 5 OXFORD HOUSE, GOD’S LAKE, and ISLAND LAKE BANDS. Dated 29th day of July 1909 We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on behalf of ourselves and the other members of the Oxford House, God’s Lake and Island Lake Band of Indians, having had communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as Treaty No. 5, hereby in consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being understood and agreed that the said provisions shall not be retroactive, transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said Treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors forever. And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and interest whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we represent hold and enjoy, or have held and enjoyed, of, in and to the territory within the following limits:—All that portion of the North West Territories of Canada comprised within the following limits, that is to say; commencing where the sixtieth parallel of latitude intersects the water ’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay, thence West along the said parallel to the North East corner of the Province of Sas katch ewan, thence south along the East boundary of the said Province to the Northerly limit of the Indian treaty number Five, thence North Easterly, then South Easterly, then South Westerly and again South Easterly following the northerly limit of the said Treaty number Five to the intersection of a line drawn from the North East corner of the Province of Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence

www.abc-clio.com

on the said line produced fifty miles; thence North twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty miles more or less to a point situated due South of Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point of commencement, together with all the foreshores, and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of land, and containing approximately an area of one hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred (133,400) square miles. And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, of hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether the said lands are situated in the North West Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of His Majesty, the King, His heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, payments and reserves promised to and accepted by the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and we agree in all things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had attached our signatures to the said treaty. And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves of land of a like proportionate area to those mentioned in the original Treaty No. 5. And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original Treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Indians; and to further increase this annual grant in lieu of other supplies provided by the said treaty when this action is shown to be in the interests of the Indians. And His Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in addi-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 5, 1875

tion to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of his Indians and in extinguishment of all their past claims. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Oxford House this Twenty Ninth day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, H. S. STEAD, Secretary, WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M., CHRISTY THOMPSON, H. A. McIVER, A. E. KEMP, BERTHA STEAD, BARBARA ROSS, JEREMIAS CHUBB Chief, his x mark, ROBERT CHUBB, H.S.S., Councillor., his x mark, JAMES NATAWAYO, Councillor, H.S.S., his x mark, And at God’s Lake this 6th day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by H.S. STEAD, Secretary, A. B. MASSIL, E. T. BEVINGTON, A. SWAIN, C. THOMPSON, WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M., WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary, BARBARA ROSS, BERTHA STEAD, JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, [Name in Cree characters], (PETER WATT), Chief, his x mark, [Name in Cree characters], (BIG SIMON), Councillor., his x mark, PETER CHUBB, Councillor H.S.S., his x mark

www.abc-clio.com

593

And at Island Lake this 13th day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by H. S. STEAD, Secretary, BERTHA STEAD, BARBARA ROSS, CHARLES B. ISBESTER, C. CUNNUNGHAM, WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary, WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M., ALEX H. CUNNINGHAM, JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, GEORGE NOTT, Chief, H.S.S., his x mark JOSEPH LINKLATER, Councillor H.S.S., his x mark JOHN MASON Councillor, H.S.S., his x mark WE, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on behalf of ourselves and the other members of the Deer Lake, Fort York and Fort Churchill Bands of Indians, having had communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as Treaty No. 5, hereby in consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being understood and agreed that the said provisions shall not be retroactive, transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the territory described in the said Treaty, and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors forever. And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors, to and for the use of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and interest whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we represent hold and enjoy, or have held and enjoyed, of, in and to the territory within the following limits; All that portion of the North West Territories of Canada comprised within the following limits, that is to say; commencing where the sixtieth parallel of latitude intersects the water’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay, thence West along the said parallel to the North East corner of the Province of Saskatchewan, thence south along the East boundary of the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

594

Treaty 5, 1875

said Province to the Northerly limit of the Indian treaty number Five, thence North Easterly, then South Easterly, then South Westerly and again south Easterly following the northerly limit of the said Treaty Number Five to the intersection of a line drawn from the North East corner of the Province of Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence on the said line produced fifty miles; thence North twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty miles more or less to a point situated due South of Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point of commencement, together with all the foreshores, and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of land, and containing approximately an area of one hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred (133,400) square miles. And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, or hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether the said lands are situated in the North West Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors forever. And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, payments and reserves promised to and accepted by the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed and performed, and we agree in all things to conform to the articles of the said Treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had attached our signatures to the said Treaty.

provided by the said Treaty when this action is shown to be in the interests of the Indians. And His Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in addition to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of his Indians and in extinguishment of all their past claims. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said Treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Deer’s Lake East this ninth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by [L.S.] ROBERT FIDDLER, Chief of Deer’s Lake East., his x mark A. VERNON THOMAS, secretary to Commissioner, HARVEY J. HASSARD, Physician, WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary Signed at Fort Churchill, August 1st, 1910, by

And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves of land of a like proportionate area to those mentioned in the original Treaty No. 5. And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original Treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the said Indians; and to further increase this annual grant in lieu of other supplies

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

JOHN SEMMENS, [L.S.], Commissioner, FRENCH JOHN, Chief. [L.S.], his x mark, SAM CHINASHAGUN, Councillor [L.S.], his x mark, THOMAS CRAZY, Councillor [L.S.], his x mark Witnessed by: C. N. C. HAYTER, Sgt. R.N.W.M.P., ASHTON ASHTON F. C. SEVIER, Missionary in Charge, A. VERNON THOMAS, Clerk, HARVEY. J. HASSARD, Physician, JAMES MELVILLE, MACOUN, THOMAS N. MARCELLUS, WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary, JOHN SEMMENS [L.S.], Commissioner Signed at York Factory, August 10th, 1910. [Name in Indian characters] [L.S.],

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 6, 1876

CHARLES WASTASEKOOT, Chief., his x mark, [Name in Indian characters] [L.S.], ROBERT BEARDY, Councillor, his x mark [Name in Indian characters] [L.S.], SANDY BEARDY, his x mark Witnessed by: HARVEY J. HANSARD, Physician, LESLIE LAING, THOS. TURNBULL, RICHARD FARIES, clk. in H.O, R. L. BAYLIS, A. VERNON THOMAS, Clerk, JOHN SEMMENS [L.S.], Commissioner

Treaty 6, 1876 Aug. 28, Sept. 9, 1876 Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Plain and Wood Cree Indians and Other Tribes of Indians at Fort Carlton, Fort Pitt and Battle River with Adhesions ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded near Carlton on the 23rd day of August and on the 28th day of said month, respectively, and near Fort Pitt on the 9th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honourable Alexander Morris, LieutenantGovernor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the Honourable James McKay, and the Honourable William Joseph Christie, of the one part, and the Plain and Wood Cree and the other Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said country have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioners, been convened at meetings at Fort Carlton, Fort Pitt and Battle River, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners

www.abc-clio.com

595

that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council, as aforesaid, and being requested by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful performance by their respective Bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have thereupon named for that purpose, that is to say, representing the Indians who make the treaty at Carlton, the several Chiefs and Councillors who have subscribed hereto, and representing the Indians who make the treaty at Fort Pitt, the several Chiefs and Councillors who have subscribed hereto. And thereupon, in open council, the different Bands having presented their Chiefs to the said Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. And whereas, the said Commissioners then and there received and acknowledged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. And whereas, the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded, as follows, that is to say: The Plain and Wood Cree Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

596

Treaty 6, 1876

privileges, whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Commencing at the mouth of the river emptying into the north-west angle of Cumberland Lake; thence westerly up the said river to its source; thence on a straight line in a westerly direction to the head of Green Lake; thence northerly to the elbow in the Beaver River; thence down the said river northerly to a point twenty miles from the said elbow; thence in a westerly direction, keeping on a line generally parallel with the said Beaver River (above the elbow), and about twenty miles distant therefrom, to the source of the said river; thence northerly to the north-easterly point of the south shore of Red Deer Lake, continuing westerly along the said shore to the western limit thereof; and thence due west to the Athabasca River; thence up the said river, against the stream, to the Jaspar House, in the Rocky Mountains; thence on a course south-easterly, following the easterly range of the mountains, to the source of the main branch of the Red Deer River; thence down the said river, with the stream, to the junction therewith of the outlet of the river, being the outlet of the Buffalo Lake; thence due east twenty miles; thence on a straight line south-eastwardly to the mouth of the said Red Deer River on the south branch of the Saskatchewan River; thence eastwardly and northwardly, following on the boundaries of the tracts conceded by the several treaties numbered four and five to the place of beginning. And also, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the North-west Territories, or in any other Province or portion of Her Majesty’s Dominions, situated and being within the Dominion of Canada. The tract comprised within the lines above described embracing an area of 121,000 square miles, be the same more or less. To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands, due respect being had to lands at present cultivated by the said Indians, and other reserves for the benefit of the said Indians, to be administered and dealt with for them by Her Majesty’s Govern-

www.abc-clio.com

ment of the Dominion of Canada; provided, all such reserves shall not exceed in all one square mile for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, in manner following, that is to say: that the Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs shall depute and send a suitable person to determine and set apart the reserves for each band, after consulting with the Indians thereof as to the locality which may be found to be most suitable for them. Provided, however, that Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any Band as She shall deem fit, and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed of by Her Majesty’s Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained; and with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, She hereby, through Her Commissioners, makes them a present of twelve dollars for each man, woman and child belonging to the Bands here represented, in extinguishment of all claims heretofore preferred. And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 6, 1876

settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indians, that such sections of the reserves above indicated as may at any time be required for public works or buildings, of what nature soever, may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made for the value of any improvements thereon. And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distributing them in families, and shall, in every year ensuing the date hereof, at some period in each year, to be duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places to be appointed for that purpose within the territory ceded, pay to each Indian person the sum of $5 per head yearly. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians, that the sum of $1,500.00 per annum shall be yearly and every year expended by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition, and twine for nets, for the use of the said Indians, in manner following, that is to say: In the reasonable discretion, as regards the distribution thereof among the Indians inhabiting the several reserves, or otherwise, included herein, of Her Majesty’s Indian Agent having the supervision of this treaty. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians, that the following articles shall be supplied to any Band of the said Indians who are now cultivating the soil, or who shall hereafter commence to cultivate the land, that is to say: Four hoes for every family actually cultivating; also, two spades per family as aforesaid: one plough for every three families, as aforesaid; one harrow for every three families, as aforesaid; two scythes and one whetstone, and two hay forks and two reaping hooks, for every family as aforesaid, and also two axes; and also one cross-cut saw, one hand-saw, one pit-saw, the necessary files, one grindstone and one auger for each Band; and also for each Chief for the use of his Band, one chest of ordinary car-

www.abc-clio.com

597

penter ’s tools; also, for each Band, enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and oats to plant the land actually broken up for cultivation by such Band; also for each Band four oxen, one bull and six cows; also, one boar and two sows, and one handmill when any Band shall raise sufficient grain therefor. All the aforesaid articles to be given once and for all for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the said Indians, that each Chief, duly recognized as such, shall receive an annual salary of twentyfive dollars per annum; and each subordinate officer, not exceeding four for each Band, shall receive fifteen dollars per annum; and each such Chief and subordinate officer, as aforesaid, shall also receive once every year, a suitable suit of clothing, and each Chief shall receive, in recognition of the closing of the treaty, a suitable flag and medal, and also as soon as convenient, one horse, harness and wagon. That in the event hereafter of the Indians comprised within this treaty being overtaken by any pestilence, or by a general famine, the Queen, on being satisfied and certified thereof by Her Indian Agent or Agents, will grant to the Indians assistance of such character and to such extent as Her Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs shall deem necessary and sufficient to relieve the Indians from the calamity that shall have befallen them. That during the next three years, after two or more of the reserves hereby agreed to be set apart to the Indians shall have been agreed upon and surveyed, there shall be granted to the Indians included under the Chiefs adhering to the treaty at Carlton, each spring, the sum of one thousand dollars, to be expended for them by Her Majesty’s Indian Agents, in the purchase of provisions for the use of such of the Band as are actually settled on the reserves and are engaged in cultivating the soil, to assist them in such cultivation. That a medicine chest shall be kept at the house of each Indian Agent for the use and benefit of the Indians at the direction of such agent. That with regard to the Indians included under the Chiefs adhering to the treaty at Fort Pitt, and to those under Chiefs within the treaty limits who may hereafter give their adhesion thereto

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

598

Treaty 7, 1877

(exclusively, however, of the Indians of the Carlton region), there shall, during three years, after two or more reserves shall have been agreed upon and surveyed be distributed each spring among the Bands cultivating the soil on such reserves, by Her Majesty’s Chief Indian Agent for this treaty, in his discretion, a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, in the purchase of provisions for the use of such members of the Band as are actually settled on the reserves and engaged in the cultivation of the soil, to assist and encourage them in such cultivation. That in lieu of waggons, if they desire it and declare their option to that effect, there shall be given to each of the Chiefs adhering hereto at Fort Pitt or elsewhere hereafter (exclusively of those in the Carlton district), in recognition of this treaty, as soon as the same can be conveniently transported, two carts with iron bushings and tires. And the undersigned Chiefs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law, and they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tracts, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at or near Fort Carlton, on the days and year aforesaid, and near Fort Pitt on the day above aforesaid.

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty 7, 1877 Sept. 22, Dec. 4, 1877 Treaty and Supplementary Treaty No. 7 made 22nd Sept., and 4th Dec., 1877, between her Majesty the Queen and the Blackfeet and other Indian Tribes, at the Blackfoot Crossing of Bow River and Fort MacLeod. ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION FOR TREATY No. 7 On a Report dated 28th June 1877 from the Honourable the Minister of the Interior stating that it having been decided that a Treaty should be made this year with the Blackfeet and other Indians occupying the unceded territory North of the Boundary Line, East of the Rocky Mountains, and West and South of Treaties Nos. 4 and 6, His Honor Lieut. Governor Laird was in the early part of the year instructed to notify the Indians that Commissioners would be sent in the Fall to negotiate a Treaty with them at such time and place as His Honor might appoint for that purpose. That His Honor has advised the Department that he has accordingly notified the Indians to assemble at Fort MacLeod on the 13th September next to meet the Commissioners to be appointed to negotiate a Treaty with them. That the necessary funds to meet the expense of the Treaty have been duly provided in the Estimates for the coming year. That the Territory to be included in the proposed Treaty is occupied by the Blackfeet, Crees, Sarcees and Peigans and may be estimated approximately at about 35,000 Square Miles in area. The Minister recommends that His Honor the Lieutenant Governor of the North West Territories and Lieut. Colonel James F. Macleod, C.M.G., Commissioner of the Mounted Police, be appointed Commissioners for the purpose of negotiating the proposed Treaty. The Committee submit the foregoing recommendations for approval. Signed: A. Mackenzie Approved

ABC-CLIO

12 July 1877 Signed: Mr. B. Richards Deputy Governor

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 7, 1877

ARTICLES OF A TREATY Made and concluded this twenty-second day of September, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honorable David Laird, Lieutenant-Governor and Indian Superintendent of the North-West Territories, and James Farquharson MacLeod, C.M.G., Commissioner of the North-West Mounted Police, of the one part, and the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians, inhabitants of the Territory north of the United States Boundary Line, east of the central range of the Rocky Mountains, and south and west of Treaties numbers six and four, by their Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs or Councillors, chosen as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. WHEREAS the Indians inhabiting the said Territory, have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the “Blackfoot Crossing” of the Bow River, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other; And whereas the said Indians have been informed by Her Majesty’s Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country, bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a Treaty, and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and between them and Her Majesty’s other subjects; and that Her Indian people may know and feel assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence; And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in Council, and being requested by Her Majesty’s Commissioners to present their Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs, or Councillors, who shall be authorized, on their behalf, to conduct such negotiations and sign any Treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance, by their respective Bands of such obligations as should be assumed by them, the said Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan and Sarcee Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose, the several Head and Minor Chiefs, and the said Stony

www.abc-clio.com

599

Indians, the Chiefs and Councillors who have subscribed hereto, that thereupon in open Council the said Commissioners received and acknowledged the Head and Minor Chiefs and the Chiefs and Councillors presented for the purpose aforesaid; And whereas the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a Treaty with the said Indians; and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say: the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Commencing at a point on the International Boundary due south of the western extremity of the Cypress Hills, thence west along the said boundary to the central range of the Rocky Mountains, or to the boundary of the Province of British Columbia, thence north-westerly along the said boundary to a point due west of the source of the main branch of the Red Deer River, thence south-westerly and southerly following on the boundaries of the Tracts ceded by the Treaties numbered six and four to the place of commencement; And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to all other lands wherever situated in the North-West Territories, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada: To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever: And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may, from time to time, be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty and saving and excepting such Tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes by Her Government of Canada; or by any of Her Majesty’s subjects duly authorized therefor by the said Government. It is also agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indians that Reserves shall be assigned them of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

600

Treaty 7, 1877

sufficient area to allow one square mile for each family of five persons, or in that proportion for larger and smaller families, and that said Reserves shall be located as follows, that is to say: First. —The Reserves of the Blackfeet, Blood and Sarcee Bands of Indians, shall consist of a belt of land on the north side of the Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers, of an average width of four miles along said rivers, down stream, commencing at a point on the Bow River twenty miles north-westerly of the Blackfoot Crossing thereof, and extending to the Red Deer River at its junction with the South Saskatchewan; also for the term of ten years, and no longer, from the date of the concluding of this Treaty, when it shall cease to be a portion of said Indian Reserves, as fully to all intents and purposes as if it had not at any time been included therein, and without any compensation to individual Indians for improvements, of a similar belt of land on the south side of the Bow and Saskatchewan Rivers of an average width of one mile along said rivers, down stream; commencing at the aforesaid point on the Bow River, and extending to a point one mile west of the coal seam on said river, about five miles below the said Blackfoot Crossing; beginning again one mile east of the said coal seam and extending to the mouth of Maple Creek at its junction with the South Saskatchewan; and beginning again at the junction of the Bow River with the latter river, and extending on both sides of the South Saskatchewan in an average width on each side thereof of one mile, along said river against the stream, to the junction of the Little Bow River with the latter river, reserving to Her Majesty, as may now or hereafter be required by Her for the use of Her Indian and other subjects, from all the Reserves hereinbefore described, the right to navigate the above mentioned rivers, to land and receive fuel cargoes on the shores and banks thereof, to build bridges and establish ferries thereon, to use the fords thereof and all the trails leading thereto, and to open such other roads through the said Reserves as may appear to Her Majesty’s Government of Canada, necessary for the ordinary travel of her Indian and other subjects, due compensation being paid to individual Indians for improvements, when the same may be in any manner encroached upon by such roads. Secondly —That the Reserve of the Piegan Band of Indians shall be on the Old Man’s River, near the

www.abc-clio.com

foot of the Porcupine Hills, at a place called “Crow’s Creek.” And, Thirdly —The Reserve of the Stony Band of Indians shall be in the vicinity of Morleyville. In view of the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the recent general good conduct of her said Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past claims, she hereby, through her Commissioners, agrees to make them a present payment of twelve dollars each in cash to each man, woman, and child of the families here represented. Her Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually afterwards forever, she will cause to be paid to the said Indians, in cash, at suitable places and dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each Chief, twenty-five dollars, each minor Chief or Councillor (not exceeding fifteen minor Chiefs to the Blackfeet and Blood Indians, and four to the Piegan and Sarcee Bands, and five Councillors to the Stony Indian Bands), fifteen dollars, and to every other Indian of whatever age, five dollars; the same, unless there be some exceptional reason, to be paid to the heads of families for those belonging thereto. Further, Her Majesty agrees that the sum of two thousand dollars shall hereafter every year be expended in the purchase of ammunition for distribution among the said Indians; Provided that if at any future time ammunition become comparatively unnecessary for said Indians, Her Government, with the consent of said Indians, or any of the Bands thereof, may expend the proportion due to such Band otherwise for their benefit. Further, Her Majesty agrees that each Head Chief and Minor Chief, and each Chief and Councillor duly recognized as such, shall, once in every three years, during the term of their office, receive a suitable suit of clothing, and each Head Chief and Stony Chief, in recognition of the closing of the Treaty, a suitable medal and flag, and next year, or as soon as convenient, each Head Chief, and Minor Chief, and Stony Chief shall receive a Winchester rifle. Further, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salary of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Government of Canada may seem advisable,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 7, 1877

when said Indians are settled on their Reserves and shall desire teachers. Further, Her Majesty agrees to supply each Head and Minor Chief, and each Stony Chief, for the use of their Bands, ten axes, five handsaws, five augers, one grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones. And further, Her Majesty agrees that the said Indians shall be supplied as soon as convenient, after any Band shall make due application therefor, with the following cattle for raising stock, that is to say: for every family of five persons, and under, two cows; for every family of more than five persons, and less than ten persons, three cows, for every family of over ten persons, four cows; and every Head and Minor Chief, and every Stony Chief, for the use of their Bands, one bull; but if any Band desire to cultivate the soil as well as raise stock, each family of such Band shall receive one cow less than the above mentioned number, and in lieu thereof, when settled on their Reserves and prepared to break up the soil, two hoes, one spade, one scythe, and two hay forks, and for every three families, one plough and one harrow, and for each Band, enough potatoes, barley, oats, and wheat (if such seeds be suited for the locality of their Reserves) to plant the land actually broken up. All the aforesaid articles to be given, once for all, for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians. And the undersigned Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan and Sarcee Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs, and Stony Chiefs and Councillors on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the Tract within ceded do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the Law, that they will maintain peace and good order between each other and between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, Half Breeds or Whites, now inhabiting, or hereafter to inhabit, any part of the said ceded tract; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person, passing or travelling through the said tract or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipula-

www.abc-clio.com

601

tions of this Treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF HER MAJESTY’S said Commissioners, and the said Indian Head and Minor Chiefs, and Stony Chiefs and Councillors, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at the “Blackfoot Crossing” of the Bow River, the day and year herein first above written. Signed by the Chiefs and Councillors within named in presence of the following witnesses, the same having been first explained by James Bird, Interpreter. DAVID LAIRD, Lieutenant-Governor of NorthWest Territories, and Special Indian Commissioner, A. G. IRVINE, Ass’t. Com., N.W.M.P., J. McDOUGALL, Missionary, JEAN L’HEUREUX, W. WINDER, Inspector, T. N. F. CROZIER, Inspector, E. DALRYMPLE CLARK, Lieut & Adjutant N.W.M.P., A. SHURTLIFF, Sub Inspector, C. E. DENING, Sub Inspector, W. D. AUTROBUS, Sub Inspector, FRANK NORMAN, Staff Constable, MARY J. MACLEOD, JULIA WINDER, JULIA SHURTLIFF, E. HARDISTY, A. McDOUGALL, E. A. BARRETT, JAMES F. MACLEOD, Lieut.-Colonel, Com. N.W.M.P., and Special Indian Commissioner, CHAPO-MEXICO, or Crowfoot, Head Chief of the South Blackfeet, MATOSE-APIW, or Old Sun, Head Chief of the North Blackfeet, STAMISCOTOCAR, or Bull Head, Head Chief of the Sarcees, MEKASTO, or Red Crow, Head Chief of the South Bloods CONSTANTINE SCOLLEN, Priest, witness to signatures of Stonixosak and those following. CHARLES E. CONRAD, THOS J. BOGG, NATOSE-ONISTORS, or Medicine Calf,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

602

Treaty 7, 1877

POKAPIW-OTOIAN, or Bad Head, SOTENAH, or Rainy Chief, Head Chief of the North Bloods, TAKOYE-STAMIX, or Fiend Bull, AKKA-KITCIPIMIW-OTAS, or Many Spotted Horse, ATTISTAH-MACAN, or Running Rabbit, PITAH-PEKIS, or Eagle Rib, SAKOYE-AOTAN, or Heavy Shield, Head Chief of the Middle Blackfeet, ZOATZE-TAPITAPIW, or Setting on an Eagle Tail, Head Chief of the North Piegans, AKKA-MAKKOYE, or Many Swans, APENAKO-SAPOP, or Morning Plume, his x mark, MAS-GWA-AH-SID, or Bear’s Paw, CHE-NE-KA, or John, KI-CHI-PWOT, or Jacob, STAMIX-OSOK, or Bull Backfat, EMITAH-APISKINNE,or White Striped Dog, MATAPI-KOMOTZIW, or the Captive or Stolen Person, APAWAWAKOSOW, or White Antelope, MAKOYE-KIN, or Wolf Collar, AYE-STIPIS-SIMAT, or Heavily Whipped, KISSOUM, or Day Light, PITAH-OTOCAN, or Eagle Head, APAW-STAMIX, or Weasel Bull, ONISTAH -POKAH, or White Calf, NETAH-KITEI-PI-MEW or Only Spot, AKAK-OTOS, or Many Horses, STOKIMATIS, or The Drum, PITAH-ANNES, or Eagle Robe, PITAH-OTISKIN, or Eagle Shoe, STAMIXO-TA-KA-PIW, or Bull Turn Round, MASTE-PITAH, or Crow Eagle, JAMES DIXON, ABRAHAM KECHEPWOT, PATRICK KECHEPWOT, GEORGE MOY-ANY-MEN, GEORGE CRAWLOR, EKAS-KINE, or Low Horn, KAYO-OKOSIS, or Bear Shield, PONOKAH-STAMIX, or Bull Elk, OMAKSI SAPOP, or Big Plume, ONISTAH, or Calf Robe, PITAH-SIKSINUM, or White Eagle, APAW-ONISTAW, or Weasel Calf, ATTISTA-HAES, or Rabbit Carrier, PITAH, or Eagle, PITAH-ONISTAH, or Eagle White Calf, KAYE-TAPO, or Going to Bear

www.abc-clio.com

We the members of the Blackfoot tribe of Indians having had explained to us the terms of the Treaty made and concluded at the Blackfoot Crossing of the Bow River, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven; Between Her Majesty the Queen, by Her Commissioners duly appointed to negotiate the said Treaty and the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indian inhabitants of the country within the limits defined in the said Treaty, but not having been present at the Councils at which the articles of the said Treaty were agreed upon, do now hereby, for ourselves and the Bands which we represent, in consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to us and the Bands which we represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, all our right, title, and interest whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we represent have held or enjoyed of in and to the territory described and fully set out in the said Treaty; also, all our right, title, and interest whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated, whether within the limits of any other Treaty heretofore made or hereafter to be made with Indians, or elsewhere in Her Majesty’s territories, to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors forever; And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, payments, and Reserves promised to the Indians under the Chiefs adhering to the said Treaty at the Blackfoot Crossing of the Bow River, and we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named, to be observed and performed and in all things to conform to the articles of the said Treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent had been originally contracting parties thereto and had been present at the Councils held at the Blackfoot Crossing of the Bow River, and had there attached our signatures to the said Treaty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, James Farquharson MacLeod, C.M.G., one of Her Majesty’s Commissioners appointed to negotiate the said Treaty, and the Chief of the Band, hereby giving their adhesion to the said Treaty, have hereunto subscribed and set

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 8, 1899

their hands at Fort MacLeod, this fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand and eight hundred and seventy-seven. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been explained to the Indians by the said James Farquharson MacLeod, one of the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the said Treaty, through theinterpreter, Jerry Potts, in thepresence of A. G. IRVINE, Assistant Commissioner. E. DALRMYMLE CLARK, Lieutenant and Adjutant N.W.M.P. CHARLES E. CONRAD, W. WINDER, Inspector.

AND WHEREAS, the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commission that it is Her desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty, and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty’s other subjects, and that Her Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. AND WHEREAS, the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council at the respective points named hereunder, and being requested by Her Majesty’s Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the several Chiefs and Headmen who have subscribed hereto.

Treaty 8, 1899 June 21, 1899 Treaty No. 8 MADE JUNE 21, 1899 AND ADHESIONS, REPORTS, ETC. ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninetynine, between Her most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners the Honourable David Laird, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Indian Commissioner for the said Province and the Northwest Territories; James Andrew Joseph McKenna, of Ottawa, Ontario, Esquire, and the Honourable James Hamilton Ross, of Regina, in the Northwest Territories, of the one part; and the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs and Headmen, hereunto subscribed, of the other part: WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the territory hereinafter defined have, pursuant to notice given by the Honourable Superintendent General of Indian Affairs in the year 1898, been convened to meet a Commission representing Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said territory in this present year 1899, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest of Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other.

www.abc-clio.com

603

AND WHEREAS, the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Commencing at the source of the main branch of the Red Deer River in Alberta, thence due west to the central range of the Rocky Mountains, thence northwesterly along the said range to the point where it intersects the 60th parallel of north latitude, thence east along said parallel to the point where it intersects Hay River, thence northeasterly down said river to the south shore of Great Slave Lake, thence along the said shore northeasterly (and including such rights to the islands in said lakes as the Indians mentioned in the treaty may possess), and thence

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

604

Treaty 8, 1899

easterly and northeasterly along the south shores of Christie’s Bay and McLeod’s Bay to old Fort Reliance near the mouth of Lockhart’s River, thence southeasterly in a straight line to and including Black Lake, thence southwesterly up the stream from Cree Lake, thence including said lake southwesterly along the height of land between the Athabasca and Churchill Rivers to where it intersects the northern boundary of Treaty Six, and along the said boundary easterly, northerly and southwesterly, to the place of commencement . AND ALSO the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever. And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for such bands as desire reserves, the same not to exceed in all one square mile for each family of five for such number of families as may elect to reside on reserves, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; and for such families or individual Indians as may prefer to live apart from band reserves, Her Majesty undertakes to provide land in severalty to the extent of 160 acres to each Indian, the land to be conveyed with a proviso as to non-alienation without the consent of the Governor General in Council of Canada, the selection of such reserves, and lands in severalty, to be made in the manner following, namely, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall depute and send a suitable person to determine and set apart such reserves and lands, after consulting with the Indians concerned as to the locality which may be found suitable and open for selection.

www.abc-clio.com

Provided, however, that Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any band as She may see fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed of by Her Majesty’s Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her said Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above indicated as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other consideration for the area of the reserve so appropriated. And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past claims, She hereby, through Her Commissioners, agrees to make each Chief a present of thirty-two dollars in cash, to each Headman twenty-two dollars, and to every other Indian of whatever age, of the families represented at the time and place of payment, twelve dollars. Her Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually afterwards for ever, She will cause to be paid to the said Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each Chief twenty-five dollars, each Headman, not to exceed four to a large Band and two to a small Band, fifteen dollars, and to every other Indian, of whatever age, five dollars, the same, unless there be some exceptional reason, to be paid only to heads of families for those belonging thereto. FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Chief, after signing the treaty, shall receive a silver medal and a suitable flag, and next year, and every third year thereafter, each Chief and Headman shall receive a suitable suit of clothing. FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salaries of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Majesty’s Government of Canada may seem advisable.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 8, 1899

FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to supply each Chief of a Band that selects a reserve, for the use of that Band, ten axes, five hand-saws, five augers, one grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones. FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Band that elects to take a reserve and cultivate the soil, shall, as soon as convenient after such reserve is set aside and settled upon, and the Band has signified its choice and is prepared to break up the soil, receive two hoes, one spade, one scythe and two hay forks for every family so settled, and for every three families one plough and one harrow, and to the Chief, for the use of his Band, two horses or a yoke of oxen, and for each Band potatoes, barley, oats and wheat (if such seed be suited to the locality of the reserve), to plant the land actually broken up, and provisions for one month in the spring for several years while planting such seeds; and to every family one cow, and every Chief one bull, and one mowing-machine and one reaper for the use of his Band when it is ready for them; for such families as prefer to raise stock instead of cultivating the soil, every family of five persons, two cows, and every Chief two bulls and two mowing-machines when ready for their use, and a like proportion for smaller or larger families. The aforesaid articles, machines and cattle to be given one for all for the encouragement of agriculture and stock raising; and for such Bands as prefer to continue hunting and fishing, as much ammunition and twine for making nets annually as will amount in value to one dollar per head of the families so engaged in hunting and fishing. And the undersigned Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indian Chiefs and Headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY PROMISE and engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. THEY PROMISE AND ENGAGE that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between each other, and between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, this year inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded territory; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant

www.abc-clio.com

605

of such ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this Treaty or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the Cree Chief and Headmen of Lesser Slave Lake and the adjacent territory, HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS at Lesser Slave Lake on the twenty-first day of June, in the year herein first above written. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by Albert Tate and Samuel Cunningham, Interpreters. Father A. LACOMBE, GEO. HOLMES, E. GROUARD, O.M.I., W. G. WHITE, JAMES WALKER, J. ARTHUR COTÉ, A. E. SNYDER, Insp. N.W.M.P., H. B. ROUND, HARRISON S. YOUNG, J. F. PRUD’HOMME, J. W. MARTIN, C. MAIR, H. A. CONROY, PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT, J. H. PICARD, RICHARD SECORD, M. MCCAULEY, DAVID LAIRD, Treaty Commissioner, J.A.J. McKENNA, Treaty Commissioner, J. H. ROSS, Treaty Commissioner, KEE NOO SHAY OO Chief, MOOSTOOS Headman, FELIX GIROUX Headman, WEE CHEE WAY SIS Headman, CHARLES NEE SUE TA SIS Headman, CAPTAIN Headman, from Sturgeon Lake In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the Headman of the Indians of Peace River Landing and the adjacent territory, in behalf of himself and the Indians whom he

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

606

Treaty 8, 1899

represents, have hereunto set their hands at the said Peace River Landing on the first day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by Father A. Lacombe and John Boucher, Interpreters. Father A. LACOMBE, E. GROUARD, O.M.I., Ev. d’Ibora, GEO. HOLMES, HENRY MCCORRISTER, K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT, H. A. CONROY, T.A. BRICK, HARRISON S. YOUNG, J. W. MARTIN, DAVID CURRY, DAVID LAIRD, Chairman of Indian Treaty Commissioners, DUNCAN TASTAOOSTS, Headman of Crees

In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s Treaty Commissioners and the Chief and Headman of the Chipewyan Indians of Fond du Lac (Lake Athabasca) and the adjacent territory, in behalf of themselves and the Indians whom they represent, have hereunto set their hands at the said Fond du Lac on the twenty-fifth and twenty-seventh days of July, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine. The Beaver Indians of Dunvegan having met on this sixth day of July, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioners, the Honourable James Hamilton Ross and James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and having had explained to then the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their hands on the twenty-first day of June, in the year herein first above written, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty, and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings made therein.

In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the Chief and Headmen of the Beaver and Headman of the Crees and other Indians of Vermilion and the adjacent territory, in behalf of themselves and the Indians whom they represent, have hereunto set their hands at Vermilion on the eighth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine. Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, the same having been first explained to the Indians by Father A. Lacombe and John Boucher, Interpreters. Father A. LACOMBE, E. GROUARD, O.M.I., Ev. d’Ibora, MALCOLM SCOTT, F.D. WILSON, H.B. Co., H. A. CONROY, PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT, HARRISON S. YOUNG, J. W. MARTIN, K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., A.P. CLARKE, CHAS. H. STUART WADE, K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., DAVID LAIRD, Chairman of Indian Treaty Coms.,

www.abc-clio.com

AMBROSE TETE NOIRE, Chief Beaver Indians, PIERROT FOURNIER, Headman Beaver Indians

In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the Headman of the said Beaver Indians have hereunto set their hands at Dunvegan on this sixth day of July, in the year herein first above written. The Chipewyan Indians of Athabasca River, Birch River, Peace River, Slave River and Gull River, and the Cree Indians of Gull River and Deep Lake, having met at Fort Chipewyan on this thirteenth day of July, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioners, the Honourable James Hamilton Ross and James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and having had explained to them the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their hands on the twenty-first day of June, in the year herein first above written, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty, and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings made therein. In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the Chiefs and Headmen of the said Chipewyan and Cree Indians have hereunto set their hands at Fort Chipewyan on this thirteenth day of July, in the year herein first above written.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 9, 1905

The Chipewyan Indians of Slave River and the country thereabouts having met at Smith’s Landing on this seventeenth day of July, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioners, the Honourable James Hamilton Ross and James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and having had explained to them the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country, set their hands on the twentyfirst day of June, in the year herein first above written, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty, and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings made therein. In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and the Chief and Headmen of the said Chipewyan Indians have hereunto set their hands at Smith’s Landing, on this seventeenth day of July, in the year herein first above written. The Chipewyan and Cree Indians of Fort McMurray and the country thereabouts, having met at Fort McMurray, on this fourth day of August, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioner, James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and having had explained to them the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their hands on the twenty-first day of June, in the year herein first above written, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings made therein. In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commissioner and the Headmen of the said Chipewyan and Cree Indians have hereunto set their hands at Fort McMurray, on this fourth day of August, in the year herein first above written. The Indians of Wapiscow and the country thereabouts having met at Wapiscow Lake on this fourteenth day of August, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioner, the Honourable James Hamilton Ross, and having had explained to them the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their hands on the twenty-first day of June in the year herein first above written, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings made therein.

www.abc-clio.com

607

In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commissioner and the Chief and Headmen of the Indians have hereunto set their hands at Wapiscow Lake, on this fourteenth day of August, in the year herein first above written.

Treaty 9, 1905 Nov. 6, 1905; Oct. 5, 1906 THE JAMES BAY TREATY (TREATY No. 9) (MADE IN 1905 AND 1906) AND ADHESIONS MADE IN 1929 AND 1930 ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of Our Lord one thousand and nine hundred and five, between His Most Gracious Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, by His Commissioners, Duncan Campbell Scott, of Ottawa, Ontario, Esquire, and Samuel Stewart, of Ottawa, Ontario, Esquire; and Daniel George MacMartin, of Perth, Ontario, Esquire, representing the province of Ontario, of the one part; and the Ojibeway, Cree and other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their chiefs, and headmen hereunto subscribed, of the other part: — Whereas, the Indians inhabiting the territory hereinafter defined have been convened to meet a commission representing His Majesty’s government of the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said territory in this present year of 1905, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to His Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. And, whereas, the said Indians have been notified and informed by His Majesty’s said commission that it is His desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering, and such other purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country, bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of His Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good-will between them and His Majesty’s other subjects, and that His Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to count upon and receive from His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

608

Treaty 9, 1905

And whereas, the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council at the respective points named hereunder, and being requested by His Majesty’s commissioners to name certain chiefs and headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be found thereon, and to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the several chiefs and headmen who have subscribed hereto. And whereas, the said commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Ojibeway, Cree and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon, and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and His successors for ever, all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: That portion or tract of land lying and being in the province of Ontario, bounded on the south by the height of land and the northern boundaries of the territory ceded by the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850, and the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850, and bounded on the east and north by the boundaries of the said province of Ontario as defined by law, and on the west by a part of the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by the Northwest Angle Treaty No. 3; the said land containing an area of ninety thousand square miles, more or less. And also, the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, the District of Keewatin, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada. To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the King and His successors for ever. And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government of the country, acting under the authority of His Majesty,

www.abc-clio.com

and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes. And His Majesty the King hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for each band, the same not to exceed in all one square mile for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger and smaller families; and the location of the said reserves having been arranged between His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen, as described in the schedule of reserves hereto attached, the boundaries thereof to be hereafter surveyed and defined, the said reserves when confirmed shall be held and administered by His Majesty for the benefit of the Indians free of all claims, liens, or trusts by Ontario. Provided, however, that His Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any band as He may see fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed of by His Majesty’s government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained; but in no wise shall the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to sell or otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to them as reserves. It is further agreed between His said Majesty and His Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above indicated as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that purpose by His Majesty’s government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other consideration for the area of the reserve so appropriated. And with a view to show the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of His Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past claims, He hereby, through His commissioners, agrees to make each Indian a present of eight dollars in cash. His Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually afterwards for ever, He will cause to be paid to the said Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly notified, four dollars, the same, unless there be some exceptional

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 9, 1905

reason, to be paid only to the heads of families for those belonging thereto. Further, His Majesty agrees that each chief, after signing the treaty, shall receive a suitable flag and a copy of this treaty to be for the use of his band. Further, His Majesty agrees to pay such salaries of teachers to instruct the children of said Indians, and also to provide such school buildings and educational equipment as may seem advisable to His Majesty’s government of Canada. And the undersigned Ojibeway, Cree and other chiefs and headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between each other and between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of His Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, this year inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded territory; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded. And it is further understood that this treaty is made and entered into subject to an agreement dated the third day of July, nineteen hundred and five, between the Dominion of Canada and Province of Ontario, which is hereto attached. In witness whereof, His Majesty’s said commissioners and the said chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands at the places and times set forth in the year herein first above written. Signed at Osnaburg on the twelfth day of July, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and

www.abc-clio.com

609

headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., Hudsons Bay Co., ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D., JABEZ WILLIAMS, Commis, H. B. Co., DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, MISSABAY, his x mark, THOMAS MISSABAY, his x mark, GEORGE WAHWAASHKUNG, his x mark, KWIASH, his x mark, NAHOKEESIC, his x mark, OOMBASH, his x mark, DAVID SKUNK, his x mark, JOHN SKUNK, his x mark, THOMAS PANACHEESE his x mark Signed at Fort Hope on the nineteenth day of July, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: F.X. FARARD, O.M.I., THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL. M.D., CHAS. H.M. GORDON,H. B. Co., YESNO, his x mark, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, SAMUEL STEWART, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, GEORGE his x mark NAMAY, WENANGASIE his x mark DRAKE, GEORGE his x mark QUISEES, KATCHANG, his x mark, MOONIAS, his x mark, JOE GOODWIN, his x mark, ABRAHAM ATLOOKAN, his x mark, HARRY OOSKINEEGISH, his x mark, NOAH rk NESHINAPAIS, his x mark, JOHN A. ASHPANAQUESHKUN, his x mark, JACOB RABBIT, his x mark

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

610

Treaty 9, 1905

Signed at Marten Falls on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chief and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained.

witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: GEORGE MOOSONEE, THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., JOHN GEORGE MOWAT, H. B. Co., THOMAS BIRD HOLLAND, B.A., JAMES PARKINSON, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, SIMON his x mark SMALLBOY, GEORGE his x mark TAPPAISE, HENRY SAILOR, Signed in Cree syllabic, JOHN NAKOGEE, Signed in Cree syllabic, JOHN DICK, Signed in Cree syllabic, SIMON QUATCHEWAN, Signed in Cree syllabic, JOHN JEFFRIES, Signed in Cree syllabic, FRED MARK, Signed in Cree syllabic, HENRY UTAPPE, his x mark, SIMON CHEENA, his x mark

Witnesses: THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., H. B. Co., ALEX GEORGE MEINDL, M.D., SAMUEL ISERHOFF, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, WILLIAM WHITEHEAD, his x mark, WILLIAM COASTER, his x mark, DAVID KNAPAYSWET, his x mark, OSTAMAS LONG TOM, his x mark, WILLIAM WEENJACK, his x mark Signed at Fort Albany on the third day of August, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T. H. B. Co., G.W. COCKRAM, A.W. PATTERSON, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D., JOSEPH PATTERSON, MINNIE COCKRAM, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, CHARLIE STEPHEN, his x mark, PATRICK STEPHEN, his x mark, DAVID GEO. WYNNE, his x mark, ANDREW WESLEY, his x mark, JACOB TAHTAIL, his x mark, JOHN WESLEY, his x mark, XAVIER BIRD, his x mark, PETER SACKANEY, his x mark, WM. GOODWIN, his x mark, SAML. SCOTT, his x mark

Signed at New Post on the twenty-first day of August, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., H. B. Co., SYDNEY BLENKARNE BARRETT, H. B. Co., JOSEPH LOUIS VANASSE, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN.ANGUS WEENUSK, his x mark, JOHN LUKE his x mark, WILLIAM GULL, his x mark. Signed at Abitibi on the seventh day of June, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses:

Signed at Moose Factory on the ninth day of August, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

GEORGE DREVER, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D.,

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 9, 1905

PELHAM EDGAR, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, LOUIS MCDOUGALL, his x mark ANDREW MCDOUGALL, his x mark OLD CHEESE, his x mark MICHEL PENATOUCHE, his x mark LOUI MACDOUGALL, ANTOINE PENATOUCHE.

Signed at Flying Post on the sixteenth day of July, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses:

Signed at Matachewan on the twentieth day of June, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses: PELHAM EDGAR, GEORGE NOMTEITH, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D., DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, MICHEL BATISE, his x mark, ROUND EYES, his x mark, THOMAS FOX, his x mark, JIMMY PIERCE, his x mark.

JOS. MILLER, PELHAM EDGAR, A.M.C. BANTING, KENNETH ROSS, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, ANDREW his x markLUKE, JOSEPH SHEMEKET, Signed in syllabic characters, THOMAS CHICKEN, Signed in syllabic characters, JAMES NEVUE, Signed in syllabic characters

www.abc-clio.com

A.J. MCLEOD, PELHAM EDGAR, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D, JOSEPH LOUIS VANASSE, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, ALBERT BLACK ICE, Signed in syllabic character, JOHN ISSAC, Signed in syllabic characters, WILLIAM FROG, Signed in syllabic characters, THOMAS FROG, Signed in syllabic characters Signed at New Brunswick House on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses:

Signed at Mattagami on the seventh day of July, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. Witnesses:

611

GEORGE MONSONEE, JAMES G. CHRISTIE, GRACE MCTAVISH, CLAUDE D. OWENS, PELHAM EDGAR, EDMUND MORRIS, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, ALEX. PEEKETAY Signed in syllabic characters. POOTOOSH, his x mark, PETER MITIGONABIE, his x mark, TOM NESHWABUN, Signed in syllabic characters, JACOB WINDABAIE, Signed in syllabic characters Signed at Long Lake on the ninth day of August, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

612

Treaty 10, 1906

Witnesses: H.A. TREMAYNE, ISABELLA TREMAYNE, P. GODCHERE, PELHAM EDGAR, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, SAMUEL STEWART, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, KWAKIGIGICKWEANG, Signed in syllabic characters, KENESWABE, Signed in syllabic characters, MATAWAGAN, Signed insyllabic characters, ODAGAMEA, Signed in syllabic characters

Treaty 10, 1906 Sept. 19, 1906; Aug. 19, 1907 Treaty No. 10 and reports of Commissioners On a Report dated 12th July 1906, from the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, stating that the aboriginal title has not been extinguished in the greater portion of that part of the Province of Saskatchewan which lies north of the 54th parallel of latitude and in a small adjoining area in Alberta; that the Indians and Half-breeds of that territory are similarly situated to those whose country lies immediately to the south and west, whose claims have already been extinguished by, in the case of those who are Indians, a payment of a gratuity and annuity and the setting aside of lands as reserves, and in the case of those who are Half-breeds, by the issue of scrip; and they have from time to time pressed their claims for settlement on similar lines; that it is in the public interest that the whole of the territory included within the boundaries of the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta should be relieved of the claims of the aborigines; and that $12,000.00 has been included in the estimates for expenses in the making of a treaty with Indians and in settling the claims of the Half-breeds and for paying the usual gratuities to the Indians.

north of Treaties 5 and 6, and the addition to Treaty 6, which territory contains, approximately, an area of 85,000 square miles; and that the Treaty provide: for the setting aside of reserves of an area not to exceed one square mile for each family of five for such number of families as may elect to reside on reserves, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families, and for such Indian families or individual Indians as prefer to live apart from band reserves, the setting aside of lands in severalty to the extent of 160 acres for each Indian with a proviso as to nonalienation without the consent of the Governor in Council; for the payment at the time of the making of the Treaty of $32.00 in cash to each Chief, and $22.00 to each headman, and $12.00 to every other Indian of whatever age, and the payment every year thereafter of $25.00 to each Chief, $15.00 to each headman and $5.00 to every other Indian of whatever age; for the making of such provision as may from time to time be deemed advisable for the education of the Indian children; and for the affording of such assistance as may be found necessary or desirable to advance the Indians in farming or stock-raising or other work. That the Half-breeds of the territory aforesaid be granted scrip redeemable to the amount of $240.00 in payment for Dominion Land or locatable for 240 acres of Dominion Land in the form and according to the rules followed in the issue of scrip to the Halfbreeds in the territory covered by Treaty 8, which are as follows: Every Half-breed resident in the territory to be covered by the proposed Treaty at the time of the making thereof whose claim has not been extinguished either by the issue of scrip to himself or his parents or otherwise to be granted scrip as aforesaid for land or money as he, or his parent or guardian, if he be under eighteen years of age, may elect;

The Minister recommends as follows:

The extinguishment of the claim of one parent shall not be held to debar from scrip any Half-breed who is a resident of the said territory at the time of the making of the Treaty;

That a Treaty be made with the Indians of the aforesaid territory, which is situated partly in the Province of Saskatchewan and partly in the Province of Alberta, and lying to the east of Treaty 8, and to the

In case of Half-breeds whose claims were previously extinguished and who may be residents of the said territory those of their children born in the territory or in any ceded portion of the North West

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 10, 1906

outside the old boundaries of Manitoba between the 15th of July, 1870, and the end of the year 1885 are, if they have not previously received scrip, to be recognized as entitled to scrip, as they would have been recognized had their claims been presented to the Commission appointed to dispose of such claims; The certificates for scrip issued in favour of Halfbreeds under eighteen years of age shall be delivered to the father, if he be alive, and if not to the mother or guardian. The Minister further recommends that James Andrew Joseph McKenna, of the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, be appointed Commissioner, to make the proposed Treaty with the Indians of the territory described herein, and to hear and determine the claims of the Half-breeds therein and issue scrip as aforesaid to those of them whom he may find to be entitled; Mr. McKenna to be allowed in addition to his regular salary extra remuneration at the rate of $5.00 per diem. The Committee submit the same for approval. WILFRID LAURIER RATIFICATION OF TREATY No. 10 P.C. No. 2490 On a Memorandum dated 7th November, 1907, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, submitting herewith for Your Excellency’s consideration Treaty No. 10 made in 1906 by the Commissioner, James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, who was appointed to negotiate the same with the Chipewyan, Cree and other Indian inhabitants of the territory situated partly in the Province of Saskatchewan and partly in the Province of Alberta and lying to the east of Treaty No. 8 and to the north of Treaties Nos. 5 and 6 and the addition to Treaty No. 6 described in the said Treaty. The Minister also submits adhesions to the said Treaty, taken by Thomas Alexander Borthwick, Esquire, who was appointed a Commissioner to take the same during the summer of 1907 from such of the Indians of the Tribes above referred to as were not met with by Commissioner McKenna. The Minister recommends that the said Treaty, and the adhesions thereto, be approved by Your Excellency in Council; the original Treaty and adhesions to be returned to the Department of Indian Affairs

www.abc-clio.com

613

and the copy thereof to be Kept of record in the Privy Council Office. The Committee submit the same for approval accordingly. WILFRID LAURIER REPORT OF FIRST COMMISSIONER FOR TREATY No. 10. OTTAWA, January 18, 1907. The Hon. Frank Oliver, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa. SIR, —I have the honour to transmit herewith the treaty which, under the commission issued to me July 20, 1906, I made with the Chipewyan Indians of English River and Clear Lake and the Crees of Canoe Lake, in the northern part of Saskatchewan. The arrangements which I made for meeting the Indians, of which they were advised, provided that the first meeting was to be at Portage la Loche on September 3, but unfavourable weather and the action of the Indians themselves made it impossible to carry out my programme. On reaching Isle à la Crosse on August 26, en route to Portage la Loche, I found that all the Chipewyans from English River and some ten families from Clear Lake were gathered there, waiting for the commission, which was announced to be at that point on September 13. These Indians urged strongly that they be treated with at once, on the ground that they had been gathered there for several days, that their supplies were getting low, that it was necessary that they should return to their hunting grounds without further delay, that they had come long distances, and that they would have to travel far before reaching their winter quarters. I decided to accede to their request, and met them on August 28, 1906. It appeared for a time as if there would be some considerable difficulty in effecting a settlement on the lines of the treaty, for it was evident from the trend of the talk of the leaders among the Indians that there had been at work an influence which tended to make them regard the treaty as a means of enslaving them. I was able to disabuse their minds of this

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

614

Treaty 10, 1906

absurd notion and to make it clear that the government’s object was simply to do for them what had been done for neighbouring Indians when the progress of trade or settlement began to interfere with the untrammelled exercise of their aboriginal privileges as hunters.

After completing the work at Buffalo Narrows, I pushed on to Isle à la Crosse, a distance of fifty-five miles, arriving there the same night. I met the Cree Indians of Canoe Lake the next day and explained to them all the stipulations contained in the treaty. I secured their adhesion on September l9.

By the end of the day, the treaty was signed and the annuity and gratuity moneys paid.

The number of this band is eighty-two, consisting of one chief, two headmen and seventy-nine other Indians; the amount paid was $1,024.

The number of Indians paid at this point was: The chief of the Clear Lake band, who was empowered to speak for his people, requested that the remainder of the band be paid at Buffalo Narrows, where they would gather to meet me on the return journey from Portage la Loche. After treating with these Indians, I left Isle à la Crosse on August 30 for Portage la Loche, at which point I was due on September 3; but for the reasons given above, I did not reach there until the 5th. The people at this point were all half-breeds and were dealt with as such. On the 8th of the same month, I left for la Loche mission, across la Loche lake, a distance of nine miles, where more half-breeds had to be met and dealt with. There were at this point three aged Chipewyan women who desired to be attached to the Clear Lake band, and I entered them as members and paid them treaty. Having completed my work at la Loche mission on the 11th, I started on my return journey to Isle à la Crosse, reaching Buffalo Narrows on the evening of the 16th. The chief of the Clear Lake band and those of his people who had not yet been paid treaty were gathered here. I met them the following day; found them satisfied with the action of their chief in becoming a party to the treaty, and paid the gratuity and annuity. The number of Indians paid at this point, including three members of the band at Bull’s House, was: — 110 Indians at $12, $1,320. At the request of the chief, the appointment of headmen was deferred until next treaty payments, as the Indians were not then prepared to make their selections.

www.abc-clio.com

The next point of destination was Stanley, where I was scheduled to meet the Indians on October 8; but between my leaving and returning to Isle à la Crosse a report came to the Hudson’s Bay Company to the effect that the streams were very shallow and that travel would, therefore, be so very difficult and slow that in all probability our party would be frozen in and would have to remain at Stanley until dog trains could be procured. This report was quite confirmed by the information which Messrs. Revillon Freres had from that part of the country, and of which their manager, Monsieur Benard, very kindly apprised me. From the report it also appeared that, even if we made the trip, it would be impossible for the Indians from the northeastern portion of the country to be gathered there, and that there were at Stanley and in its immediate vicinity only a few half-breed families who had had their claims settled before they migrated to that region. I therefore decided to cancel the appointment, and sent notice to that effect to the people, assuring them at the same time that they would be visited at a future date, of which they would be duly notified. As the discussions which took place with the bands treated with were much on the same lines, I shall confine myself to a general statement of their import. There was a marked absence of the old Indian style of oratory, the Indians confining themselves to asking questions and making brief arguments. They all demanded even more liberal terms than were granted to Indians treated with in past years, the chief of the English River band going so far as to claim payment of ‘arrears’ from the year when the first treaty was made; some expected to be entirely fed by the government, after the making of the treaty; all asked for assistance in seasons of distress; and it was strongly urged that the old and indigent who were no longer able to hunt and trap and were

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 10, 1906

consequently often in destitute circumstances, should be cared for by the government. There was a general expression of fear that the making of the treaty would be followed by the curtailment of their hunting and fishing privileges, and the necessity of not allowing the lakes and the rivers to be monopolized or depleted by commercial fishing was emphasized. There was evidenced a marked desire to secure educational privileges for their children. In this connection and speaking for the Indians generally, the chief of the English River band insisted that in the carrying out of the government’s Indian educational policy among them there should be no interference with the system of religious schools now conducted by the mission, but that public aid should be given for improvement and extension along the lines already followed. The chief of the Canoe Lake band stated that there were about twenty-five children of school age in his band, and asked that a day school be established at Canoe Lake for their benefit and that it be put under the management of a woman teacher. There was also a demand made for a few head of cattle to be given to those of the Indians who wished to go into the industry of stock-raising. The Indians all agreed to have one place of payment in the future; but made it a condition that the payments should be held about the middle of June of each year, as that is the only time at which the gathering for annuity payments would not interfere with their avocations to an extent that the payment would be no adequate compensation for. They selected Isle à la Crosse as the place of payment. They further requested that medicines be furnished, and made an earnest appeal for the appointment of a resident medical man. In my reply I convinced them that such a claim as they put forward for what they called ‘arrears’ had never before been heard of, and that I could not for a moment recognize any obligation on the government’s part except such as would be put upon it in virtue of the execution of the treaty. I pointed out to them that the government could not undertake to maintain Indians in idleness; that the same means of

www.abc-clio.com

615

earning a livelihood would continue after the treaty was made as existed before it; and that Indians would be expected to make as good use of them in the future as in the past. I stated that the government was always ready to assist Indians in actual destitution; that in times of distress they would, without any special stipulation in the treaty, receive such assistance as it was usual to give in order to prevent starvation among them, and that the attention of the government would be called to the necessity of some special provision being made for assisting the old and indigent who were unable to work and dependent on charity for subsistence. I guaranteed that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life. I explained to them that, whether treaty was made or not, they were subject to the law, bound to obey it and liable to punishment for any infringement thereof; that it was designed for the protection of all and must be respected by all the inhabitants of the country, irrespective of colour or origin; and that, in requiring them to abide by it, they were only being required to do the duty imposed upon all the people throughout the Dominion of Canada. I dwelt upon the importance, in their own interest, of the observance of the laws respecting the protection of fish and game. As to education, the Indians were assured that there was no need for special stipulation over and above the general provision in the treaty, as it was the policy of the government to provide in every part of the country as far as circumstances would permit, for the education of the Indian children, and that the law provided for schools for Indians maintained and assisted by the government being conducted as to religious auspices in accordance with the wishes of the Indians. It was explained that the assistance in farming and ranching mentioned in the treaty, is only to be given when the Indians are actually prepared to go into those industries. It is not likely that for many years to come, there will be a call for any but a small expenditure under these heads. It is not probable that the Indians will, while present conditions continue, engage in farming further than the raising of roots in a small way. As to cattle, I stated that the agent who will be sent to make the next treaty payments, would be asked to discuss the matter with them, but that those only who are considered able

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

616

Treaty 10, 1906

and willing to take good care of cattle would receive assistance in that form. I promised that medicines would be placed at different points in the charge of persons to be selected by the government, and would be distributed to those of the Indians who might require them. I showed them that it would be practically impossible for the government to arrange for a resident doctor owing to the Indians being so widely scattered over such an extensive territory; but I assured them that the government would always be ready to avail itself of any opportunity of affording medical service just as it provided that the physician attached to the commission should give free attendance to all Indians whom he might find in need of treatment. In the main, the demand will be for ammunition and twine, as the great majority of the Indians will continue to hunt and fish for a livelihood. It does not appear likely that the conditions of that part of Saskatchewan covered by the treaty will be for many years so changed as to affect hunting and trapping, and it is expected, therefore, that the great majority of the Indians will continue in these pursuits as a means of subsistence. The Indians were given the option of taking reserves or land in severalty, when they felt the need of having land set apart for them. I made it clear that the government had no desire to interfere with their mode of life or to restrict them to reserves and that it undertook to have land in the proportions stated in the treaty set apart for them, when conditions interfered with their mode of living and it became necessary to secure them possession of land. The Indians dealt with are in character, habit, manner of dress and mode of living similar to the Chipewyans and Crees of the Athabaska country. It is difficult to draw a line of demarcation between those who classed themselves as Indians and those who elected to be treated with as half-breeds. Both dress alike and follow the same mode of life. It struck me that the one group was, on the whole, as well able to provide for self-support as the other. After leaving Green Lake, our route was by rivers and lakes and afforded not much opportunity for forming an opinion of the country ceded and of its resources. From our point of view, the country appeared flat. There were extensive stretches of hay-

www.abc-clio.com

lands along the rivers and wooded heights about the lakes. The waters abound in fish, which form the chief article of food. The Isle à la Crosse mission was founded about sixty-two years ago by Father Lafleche, who afterwards was a prominent figure in the Quebec hierarchy, and Brother Taché, who afterwards filled the See of St. Boniface. The church built by them was destroyed by fire and has been replaced by another. The building next in importance is the school conducted by the sisters. It shows marked evidence of age externally, but is cosy within, and the children whom I had the pleasure of meeting there, evidenced the kindly care and careful training of the devoted women who have gone out from the comforts of civilization to work for the betterment of the natives of the north. The priest’s house is a small one. Its only door opens into a large room which occupies the greater part of the building and which is the common gathering place of the Indians and half-breeds, who sit and smoke with an ease that seemed born of long habit of free intercourse with those who have undertaken the cure of their souls. The mission is about opposite the company’s post. It is close to the shore. The site is rather flat and for miles on three sides stretches a bald prairie, though we were told that the mission when founded was on the fringe of the forest. Whatever it may have been, it is no longer a desirable situation for a boarding school, and a new one has been erected at Rivière la Plonge, some thirty miles south of the mission. The building is one hundred feet by sixty-two feet, and is two and a half storeys high. It was finished when I visited it. The site is a delightful one on a rising ground from the river, which here breaks into a cataract that the Oblate brothers have harnessed for power purposes. They cut the logs, and, with the harnessed river, sawed them into lumber, with which they built the school, a splendid monument to their mechanical skill, industry and devotion. When I was leaving Isle à la Crosse, the moving of the children from the old to the new institution had begun. Our trip was rather a difficult one. Our transport had to be organized on short notice. The water in the rivers was pretty low, and we encountered storms on the lakes; but there was no ground for the report of shipwreck and loss which unfortunately obtained currency.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 10, 1906

I had the pleasure of the company, on most of the inward trip, of His Lordship Bishop Pascal; and I desire to repeat here the acknowledgment I made and the gratitude I expressed to his lordship personally for the assistance of his influence on my first meeting the natives of the country, which is filled with reverence for his name because of his devoted labours. I desire to express, also, my appreciation of the help ever readily rendered by Major Begin, of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, who was in command of the escort; by Dr. J. J. A. Lebrecque, the medical officer; by Mr. Charles Fisher, of Duck Lake, and Mr. Charles Mair, of Ottawa, secretaries to the commission, by the Hudson’s Bay Company’s chief factor, and by Mr. Angus McKay, the officer of the company who was especially charged with the carrying out of the transportation contract. To the men of the country on whose labour we had so much to depend I acknowledge my obligation. They worked long hours at paddling and rowing and poling, and endured great hardships in tracking and walking our canoes and flat boats over the rapids and shoals, so that I might keep my appointments. Camp was made late and broken early. Yet there was never a complaint, but always a zestful interest and cheerfulness as pleasant as the campfires that brightened the night. A detailed statement of the Indians treated with and of the money paid is appended. I have the honour to be, sir Your obedient servant, J.A.J. McKenna, Commissioner. Certified correct, J.A.J. MCKENNA, Commissioner, Treaty No. 10 TREATY No. 10 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six between His Most Gracious Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland by His commissioner, James Andrew Joseph McKenna, of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chipewyan, Cree and Other Indian inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined

www.abc-clio.com

617

and described by their chiefs and headmen hereunto subscribed of the other part. Whereas the Indians inhabiting the territory hereinafter defined have, pursuant to notice given by His Majesty’s said commissioner in the year 1906, been convened to meet His Majesty’s said commissioner representing His Majesty’s government of the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said territory in this present year 1906 to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to His Most Gracious Majesty on the one part and the said Indians of the other. And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by His Majesty’s said commissioner that it is His Majesty’s desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and such other purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned and to obtain the consent thereto of his Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract and to make a treaty and arrange with them so that there may be peace and good will between them and His Majesty’s other subjects, and that His Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to count upon and receive from His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council at the respective points named hereunder and being requested by His Majesty’s said commissioner to name certain chiefs and headmen who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon and to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the several chiefs and headmen who have subscribed hereto. And whereas the said commissioner has proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Chipewyan, Cree and other Indians inhabiting the said territory hereinafter defined and described and the same has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder; Now therefore the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

618

Treaty 10, 1906

and His successors for ever all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:

saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or as may be taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

All that territory situated partly in the province of Saskatchewan and partly in the province of Alberta, and lying to the east of Treaty Eight and to the north of Treaties Five, Six and the addition to Treaty Six, containing approximately an area of eighty-five thousand eight hundred (85,800) square miles and which may be described as follows:

And His Majesty the King hereby agrees and undertakes to set aside reserves of land for such bands as desire the same, such reserves not to exceed in all one square mile for each family of five for such number of families as may elect to reside upon reserves or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; and for such Indian families or individual Indians as prefer to live apart from band reserves His Majesty undertakes to provide land in severalty to the extent of one hundred and sixty (160) acres for each Indian, the land not to be alienable by the Indian for whom it is set aside in severalty without the consent of the Governor General in Council of Canada, the selection of such reserves and land in severalty to be made in the manner following, namely, the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall depute and send a suitable person to determine and set apart such reserves and lands, after consulting with the Indians concerned as to the locality which may be found suitable and open for selection.

Commencing at the point where the northern boundary of Treaty Five intersects the eastern boundary of the province of Saskatchewan; thence northerly along the said eastern boundary four hundred and ten miles, more or less, to the sixtieth parallel of latitude and northern boundary of the said province of Saskatchewan; thence west along the said parallel one hundred and thirty miles, more or less, to the eastern boundary of Treaty Eight; thence southerly and westerly following the said eastern boundary of Treaty Eight to its intersection with the northern boundary of Treaty Six; thence easterly along the said northern boundary of Treaty Six to its intersection with the western boundary of the addition to Treaty Six; thence northerly along the said western boundary to the northern boundary of the said addition; thence easterly along the said northern boundary to the eastern boundary of the said addition; thence southerly along the said eastern boundary to its intersection with the northern boundary of Treaty Six; thence easterly along the said northern boundary and the northern boundary of Treaty Five to the point of commencement.

Provided, however, that His Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved for any band or bands as He may see fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed of by His Majesty’s government of Canada for the use and benefit of the Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained.

To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the King and His successors for ever.

It is further agreed between His Majesty and His said Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above mentioned as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways or roads of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for such purposes by His Majesty’s government of Canada due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other consideration for the area so appropriated.

And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the territory surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government of the country acting under the authority of His Majesty and

And with a view to showing the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of His Indians and in extinguishment of all their past claims, He hereby through His commissioner agrees to make each chief a present of thirty-two (32) dollars in cash, to each headman twenty-two (22) dollars and to every other Indian of whatever age of

And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever as Indians to all and any other lands wherever situated in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories or any other portion of the Dominion of Canada.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 10, 1906

the families represented at the time and place of payment twelve (12) dollars. His Majesty also agrees that next year and annually thereafter for ever He will cause to be paid to the Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates of which the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each chief twenty-five (25) dollars, each headman fifteen (15) dollars and to every other Indian of whatever age five (5) dollars. Further His Majesty agrees that each chief, after signing the treaty, shall receive a silver medal and a suitable flag, and next year and every third year thereafter each chief shall receive a suitable suit of clothing, and that after signing the treaty each headman shall receive a bronze medal and next year and every third year thereafter a suitable suit of clothing. Further His Majesty agrees to make such provision as may from time to time be deemed advisable for the education of the Indian children. Further His Majesty agrees to furnish such assistance as may be found necessary or advisable to aid and assist the Indians in agriculture or stock-raising or other work and to make such a distribution of twine and ammunition to them annually as is usually made to Indians similarly situated. And the undersigned Chipewyan, Cree and other Indian chiefs and headmen on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty in all and every respect and to behave and conduct themselves as good and loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between each other and between their tribes and other tribes of Indians and between themselves and other of His Majesty’s subjects whether whites, Indians, half-breeds or others now inhabiting or who may hereafter inhabit any part of the territory hereby ceded and herein described, and that they will not molest the person or trespass upon the property or interfere with the rights of any inhabitant of such ceded tract or of any other district or country or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract or any part thereof and that they will assist the officers of

www.abc-clio.com

619

His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded. In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands at Isle à la Crosse this twenty-eighth day of August in the year herein first above written. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, between His Most Gracious Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland by His Commissioner Thomas Alexander Borthwick, of Mistawasis, in the province of Saskatchewan, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chipewyan, Cree and other Indian inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described by their chiefs and headmen hereunto subscribed of the other part. In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands at Lac du Brochet this 19th day of August, in the year first above written. In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands at Lac du Brochet this 22nd day of August in the year first above written. REPORT OF SECOND COMMISSION FOR TREATY NO. 10 Mistawasis, Carlton Agency, October 14, 1907. Frank Pedley, Esq. Deputy Supt. General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa. SIR, —have the honour to submit my report upon the payments of their annuities to those of the Indians of Treaty No. 10 who were treated with last year, and also transmit herewith the treaty, which, under the authority that devolved upon me by the commission issued to me on the 6th day of April, 1907, I concluded with the Chipewyan Indians living in the region of Lac du Brochet and Lac la Hache, and in the part of the district of Keewatin adjoining the northeast corner of the province of Saskatchewan. With the view of keeping appointments for the payments of their annuities to the Indians who were

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

620

Treaty 10, 1906

treated with last year at Isle à la Crosse, I proceeded from here on June 11, and after travelling over some very bad road, I arrived at Green Lake on the afternoon of the 15th, and got to Isle à la Crosse at noon of Saturday, June 22, one day behind the date that was fixed for my arrival there. Very unfavourable weather was the cause of delay. Only the Canoe Lake band of Indians had so far assembled there to meet me; and I at once had an interview with the chief and headmen of that band, and it being Saturday, they asked that the paying of their annuities be postponed until Monday, the 24th. To that request I conceded, and accordingly they were paid on that and the following day. The Indians of English River and Clear Lake bands not having then arrived, I began taking evidence in connection with claims for scrip preferred by a number of half-breeds from Souris River who did not have a chance of meeting the commissioner of last year at Isle à la Crosse. The evidence adduced by these applicants for scrip was continued up to the 29th, when the English River and Clear Lake bands having fully arrived, were paid their annuities. The 1st of July, being Dominion Day, was, at the request of the half-breeds and Indians, observed as a holiday, and they celebrated it with great enthusiasm; the members of the commission and other gentlemen present heartily joining them and making their sports pecuniarily interesting for them. Further dealings with the Indians and half-breeds occupied the time of the commission up to July 3, when, upon being informed that a considerable number of half-breeds and Indians were assembled at the Roman Catholic mission near Portage la Loche and expecting me there, I proceeded to that place, and after a very trying trip with rains and stormy weather, I reached there late on the evening of July 9, and owing to the number of half-breeds who had to be dealt with here, and the very inclement weather prevailing, it took up to the 14th to get through with the work. In addition to the half-breeds assembled here, I found a number of families of Indians from Whitefish Lake, who asked very earnestly that I should pay them their annuities. I explained to them that I could not do that, as it was inconsistent with the rules of the department to pay Indians of a certain treaty by the agent of another treaty. They pointed out that it was a great hardship for them to be compelled to travel over a hundred miles through a difficult section of the country going to Fort McMurray, which took them five or six days to get

www.abc-clio.com

there and the same number of days returning to their homes. Before leaving the mission, they handed me a petition praying that they be paid next year at Buffalo River on Buffalo Lake, to which point they can come in less than two days from Whitefish Lake. On Monday morning, July 15, I left the mission on the return trip to Isle à la Crosse, and after an unusually favourable trip I arrived there on the 17th. Here I was detained for five days to procure tripmen to go on to Stanley, for which place I started on the morning of July 23 and arrived there on the evening of August 1. Here I met some fifty heads of families of the Lac la Ronge Indians, headed by their chief, Amos Charles, and two of their headmen, who asked that they be paid their annuities there, as many of them spent the summer and autumn on the Churchill river, and in compliance with their request they were paid on the 2nd and 3rd; the 5th and 6th were occupied taking evidence of applicants for scrip and procuring tripmen for the Lac du Brochet trip. On the morning of August 7 I left Stanley for the Hudson’s Bay Company’s post on the north end of Lac du Brochet, and after a successful trip reached that place on the 17th idem. Owing to the amount of work which devolved upon the commission that was not anticipated, it was made impossible for me to reach this place, which was the stated point of rendezvous with the Indians, on the date that they were notified I was to be there to meet them; and consequently they were detained for ten days awaiting my arrival, and which led to their running out of provisions, they being all assembled with their families, and finding that they were reduced to such a state, I felt that it was proper for me to relieve their immediate necessities, and accordingly I supplied them with a limited quantity of provisions, for which they appeared to feel very thankful. I consider it proper that I should mention here that considerable help was afforded these Indians whilst waiting my arrival by Mr. A. McDermot, the Hudson’s Bay Company’s agent at this place, by giving them some light work to do and paying them for it in provisions, and likewise by the agent of the Revillon Bros. On the morning of August 19 I held council with the combined Indians of the Barren Land and the Indians of Lac la Hache, the Rev. Father Turquetil acting as interpreter, which he did on all subsequent occasions during my transactions with the Indians here,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 10, 1906

the Chipewyan language being spoken. I explained to them why I was sent to meet them, and after various thoughtful questions put by the Indians bearing upon the treaty and answered by me to their satisfaction, they asked for a short recess to discuss the terms of the treaty more fully among themselves; which was granted them. At 2 p.m. they reassembled and the Barren Land band announced that they had elected their chief and two headmen, and were prepared to accept the terms of the treaty. The Lac la Hache band intimated that some of their people were away, but would be back in a day or so, and that they would like to have their concurrence in the matter of selecting their chief and councillors; I consented to their waiting a day or so, if necessary, in order to obtain the full consent of their band to their transactions. The chief and headmen of the Barren Land band then formally signed the treaty, and without further undue delay the payments of their gratuities and annuities were begun to them, and were got through with at noon on the 21st. The number of Indians treated with in this band was 232, including: The Lac la Hache band assembled on the 22nd, and after the terms of the treaty were read over to them for the second time and thoroughly explained in their own language, they presented their elected chief and two headmen, who then in due form signed the treaty, and the members of the band were paid in accordance with the terms of the treaty. The number of Indians paid in this band was 97, including: This practically finished the Indian work at this point, and after a number of half-breeds’ applications for scrip were received, I left this place on August 24 for Lac la Ronge, via Stanley, and on September 3, after a very unusually expeditious trip, I arrived at the paying ground at Lac la Ronge; and on the 4th and 5th paid the rest of the James Roberts band some 60 odd heads of families who were not paid at Stanley. After taking the evidence of a number of halfbreed applicants for scrip at this place, and holding council meetings with the Indians in connection with the surrender of their reserve, No. 106A, &c., I left on the 11th for Montreal Lake, and arrived there on the 16th, and the following day paid their annuities to the Indians of this place, the William Charles’ band.

www.abc-clio.com

621

On the 18th I held meetings with the chief and headmen of the James Roberts’ band, who accompanied me to this place, and with that of the Wm. Charles’ band combined, bearing upon the surrender of their reserve, No. 106A, when after due deliberation, they unanimously agreed to relinquish the reserve to the government upon the terms set forth in an agreement signed by them on the 18th day of September, 1907; which agreement was transmitted to the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on the 8th instant. On the afternoon of the 18th of September, the commission party left Montreal lake with canoes for the landing on Red Deer lake, where they arrived on the 21st, after being detained one day en route with stress of weather. At the landing teams were taken to this place (Mistawasis) where we arrived on the evening of September 24, ultimo; this completing an arduous trip of over 2,000 miles by water, in canoes, and 300 miles by land, which I have pleasure to say was performed successfully and without accident. Concerning my staff, I am pleased to state that I was excellently equipped, and that, in general, a fine spirit existed amongst its members; of some of them I cannot speak too highly. Dr. H. A. Stewart proved himself ideally fitted for his post. Full of the kindest sympathy for the sick, he was untiring in his labours on their behalf; a skilful physician, he was most successful in his efforts to relieve their suffering, and won golden opinions from all who required his services. W. J. McLean, the senior secretary, displayed special ability in the performance of the onerous duties of his position, his previous experience in treaty payments standing him in good stead; while his knowledge of the French language, his long residence as a chief factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, in the part of the country traversed, and his personal acquaintance with many of the applicants, materially contributed to the success of my commission. Of the rest it would be invidious to make personal mention, suffice to say that each performed his duties with energy and intelligence, sacrificing rest and comfort, and facing danger in the effort to cover distances with the least possible loss of time. I have the honour to be, sir Your obedient servant, THOS. A. BORTHWICK, Commissioner, Treaty No. 10

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

622

Treaty 11, 1922

Treaty 11, 1922 June 27 to Aug. 30, 1921 Treaty No. 11 (June 27, 1921) and Adhesion (July 17, 1922) with Reports, Etc. REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR TREATY No. 11 OTTAWA, October 12, 1921. D. C. Scott, Esq., Deputy Superintendent General, Department of Indian Affairs, Ottawa. SIR, —I have the honour to submit herewith the report on treaty made by me on authority granted by Order in Council, dated March 14, last, as Commissioner to negotiate a treaty with the Indians occupying the territory north of the 60th parallel and along the Mackenzie river and the Arctic ocean. I left Edmonton on June 8, 1921, accompanied by Inspector W. B. Bruce, Constable Wood and Constable Campbell, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Constable Campbell acted as my clerk for the summer. Arriving at Fort McMurray on June 11, we left there on the 14th in a houseboat, the property of the Hudson’s Bay Company, which company had made all arrangements for the transportation of the treaty party during the summer in the North. We arrived at Fort Fitzgerald on June 18, crossed the portage to Fort Smith, and boarded the ss. Mackenzie River on June 20 for Fort Providence, at which place the first adhesion to Treaty 11 was to be taken. July 5 was the date set for the meeting of the Indians and myself to take place at Fort Providence, and, in order to arrive in good time, I thought it better for me and my party to proceed there by the ss. Mackenzie River, and let the houseboat take us up again at this point. The transportation of the houseboat across the portage at Fort Smith took several days. On our arrival at Fort Providence, on June 20, I found the Indians were not at the post, as we were there before the date set for the meeting, so word was sent of my arrival, and the majority of the Providence Indians living at Willow Lake arrived on June 25, those at Trout Lake not till July 2. I had several meetings with them, and explained the terms of treaty. They were very apt in asking questions, and here, as

www.abc-clio.com

in all the other posts where the treaty was signed, the questions asked and the difficulties encountered were much the same. The Indians seemed afraid, for one thing, that their liberty to hunt, trap and fish would be taken away or curtailed, but were assured by me that this would not be the case, and the Government will expect them to support themselves in their own way, and, in fact, that more twine for nets and more ammunition were given under the terms of this treaty than under any of the preceding ones; this went a long way to calm their fears. I also pointed out that any game laws made were to their advantage, and, whether they took treaty or not, they were subject to the laws of the Dominion. They also seemed afraid that they would be liable for military service if the treaty was signed, that they would be confined on the reserves, but, when told that they were exempt from military service, and that the reserves mentioned in the treaty would be of their own choosing, for their own use, and not for the white people, and that they would be free to come and go as they pleased, they were satisfied. Practically all the bands dealt with wanted more provision for medical attendance at each post, schools for their children, and supplies for their old and destitute. I pointed out that they were still able to make their own living, and that Dr. A. L. McDonald, of the Indian Department, was then with me, and that they could see him, and that he would attend them free if they wished, but that it was impossible for the Government to furnish regular medical attention, when they were occupying such a vast tract of territory. Schools were already established, and their children receiving free education, and supplies were left at each point for the sick and destitute. The treaty was signed at Fort Providence on June 27, and the following were paid:— 1 Chief, 2 Headmen, and 255 others. Our houseboat arrived on July 5, and we left Providence for Fort Simpson on the 7th, securing adhesion to the treaty there on July 11.

ABC-CLIO

1 Chief, 2 Headmen, and

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 11, 1922

344 other Indians were paid. Adhesions to the treaty were obtained at Fort Wrigley on July 13. 1 Headman, and 77 others were paid.

623

stormbound at Hay River for five days prior to crossing. These Indians hunt in every direction from the fort, some as far as 200 miles, and only come to the post in spring to trade their furs, so that, in future, I would suggest that this be the first post visited when making payments. We crossed the lake from Hay River to Rae in the Hudson Bay schooner Fort Rae, leaving our houseboat to take us up at Resolution, from which place we went on August 25, arriving at Fort Smith on August 30, Fort McMurray and Edmonton in September.

At Fort Norman on July 15,— 1 Chief, 2 Headmen, and 205 others were paid.

I much regret that I was unable, owing to the lack of time, to visit Fort Liard, and secure adhesion to the treaty by the Indians at that point, although they had sent word to Fort Simpson of their willingness to accept the same. I considered it advisable to proceed to Great Slave Lake, and cross to Fort Rae at the first opportunity, as the season was getting late.

At Good Hope, July 21,— 1 Chief, 1 Headman, and 208 others were paid. At Arctic Red River on July 26,—

Dr. A. L. McDonald joined the party at Fort Providence, and accompanied it to Good Hope, at that place having to return to Fort Resolution on account of smallpox having been reported, which report, fortunately, proved untrue. He joined the party again at Hay River, and remained with it until arrival at his headquarters at Fort Smith.

1 Chief, 1 Headman, and l69 others were paid. At Fort McPherson on July 28,— 1 Chief, 1 Headman, and 217 others were paid. At Fort Rae on August 22,— 1 Chief 2 Headmen, and 440 others were paid. Practically all the Indians were dealt with at Fort Providence, Simpson, Wrigley, Arctic Red River and McPherson, and about 65 per cent at Fort Norman, Fort Good Hope and Rae, the remainder of these Indians having been at these posts in the spring and left word that they were willing to take treaty, but had to return to their hunting grounds for their summer’s work. At Fort Rae is the largest band of Indians, about 800, and this is the most inaccessible, being on the arm of Great Slave Lake, difficulty in crossing this lake being experienced, more especially in the late summer and fall on account of storms, our party being

www.abc-clio.com

I was very glad to be accompanied by His Lordship Bishop Breynat, O.M.I., who has considerable influence with the Indians in the North, and would like here to express my appreciation of the help and hospitality accorded to me and my party in his missions, and I desire also to express my appreciation of the services rendered by Inspector Bruce, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and by his party. Constables Woods and Campbell performed their duties in the most creditable manner. H. A. CONROY, Commissioner, Treaty No. 11. TREATY NUMBER ELEVEN ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on the several dates mentioned therein in the year of Our Lord One thousand Nine hundred and TwentyOne, between His Most Gracious Majesty George V, King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, by His Commissioner, Henry Anthony Conroy, Esquire, of the City of Ottawa, of the One Part, and the Slave, Dogrib,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

624

Treaty 11, 1922

Loucheux, Hare and other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs and Headmen, hereunto subscribed, of the other part:— WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the territory hereinafter defined have been convened to meet a commissioner representing His Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said territory in this present year of 1921, to deliberate upon certain matters of interest to His Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. AND WHEREAS, the said Indians have been notified and informed by His Majesty’s said commissioner that it is His desire to open for settlement, immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and such other purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter set forth, and to obtain the consent thereto of His Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty, so that there may be peace and good-will between them and His Majesty’s other subjects, and that His Indian people may know and be assured of what allowances they are to expect and receive from His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. AND WHEREAS, the Indians of the said tract, duly convened in council at the respective points named hereunder, and being requested by His Majesty’s Commissioner, to name certain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the several chiefs and Headmen who have subscribed thereto. AND WHEREAS the said Commissioner has proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux, Hare and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, which has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and His Successors forever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to

www.abc-clio.com

the lands included within the following limits, that is to say: Commencing at the northwesterly corner of the territory ceded under the provisions of Treaty Number Eight; thence northeasterly along the height-of-land to the point where it intersects the boundary between the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories; thence northwesterly along the said boundary to the shore of the Arctic ocean; thence easterly along the said shore to the mouth of the Coppermine river; thence southerly and southeasterly along the left bank of said river to Lake Gras by way of Point lake; thence along the southern shore of Lake Gras to a point situated northwest of the most western extremity of Aylmer lake; thence along the southern shore of Aylmer lake and following the right bank of the Lockhart river to Artillery lake; thence along the western shore of Artillery lake and following the right bank of the Lockhart river to the site of Old Fort Reliance where the said river enters Great Slave lake, this being the northeastern corner of the territory ceded under the provisions of Treaty Number Eight; thence westerly along the northern boundary of the said territory so ceded to the point of commencement; comprising an area of approximately three hundred and seventy-two thousand square miles. AND ALSO, the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada. To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the King and His Successors forever. AND His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the Country acting under the authority of His Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes. AND His Majesty the King hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for each band, the same not to exceed in all one square mile for each

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty 11, 1922

family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families; PROVIDED, however, that His Majesty reserves the right to deal with any settlers within the boundaries of any lands reserved for any band as He may see fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed of by His Majesty’s Government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first had and obtained; but in no wise shall the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to sell or otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to them as reserves. It is further agreed between His Majesty and His Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and lands above indicated as may at any time be required for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that purpose by His Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation being made to the Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other consideration for the area of the reserve so appropriated. And in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of His Indian subjects, and in extinguishment of all their past claims hereinabove mentioned, He hereby, through his Commissioner, agrees to give to each Chief a present of thirty-two dollars in cash, to each Headman, twenty-two dollars, and to every other Indian of whatever age of the families represented, at the time and place of payment, twelve dollars. HIS MAJESTY, also agrees that during the coming year, and annually thereafter, He will cause to be paid to the said Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each Chief twenty-five dollars, to each Headman fifteen dollars, and to every other Indian of whatever age five dollars, to be paid only to heads of families for the members thereof, it being provided for the purposes of this Treaty that each band having at least thirty members may have a Chief, and that in addition to a Chief, each band may have Councillors or Headmen in the proportion of two to each two hundred members of the band. FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that each Chief shall receive once and for all a silver medal, a suitable flag

www.abc-clio.com

625

and a copy of this Treaty for the use of his band; and during the coming year, and every third year thereafter, each Chief and Headman shall receive a suitable suit of clothing. FURTHER, His Majesty agrees to pay the salaries of teachers to instruct the children of said Indians in such manner as His Majesty’s Government may deem advisable. FURTHER, His Majesty agrees to supply once and for all to each Chief of a band that selects a reserve, ten axes, five hand-saws, five augers, one grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones for the use of the band. FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that, each band shall receive once and for all equipment for hunting, fishing and trapping to the value of fifty dollars for each family of such band, and that there shall be distributed annually among the Indians equipment, such as twine for nets, ammunition and trapping to the value of three dollars per head for each Indian who continues to follow the vocation of hunting, fishing and trapping. FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that, in the event of any of the Indians aforesaid being desirous of following agricultural pursuits, such Indians shall receive such assistance as is deemed necessary for that purpose. AND the undersigned Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux, Hare and other Chiefs and Headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. THEY promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace between themselves and others of His Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, now inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded territory; that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or interfere with, or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

626

Treaty 11, 1922

offending against the stipulations of this Treaty, or infringing the law in force in the country so ceded.

men in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Commissioner and the said Chiefs and Headmen have hereunto set their hands at the places and times set forth in the year herein first above written.

Witnesses: SIGNED at Rae on the twenty-second day of August, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained.

SIGNED AT PROVIDENCE on the twenty-seventh day of June, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Simpson on the eleventh day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Wrigley on the thirteenth day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Norman on the fifteenth day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Good Hope on the twenty-first day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Arctic Red River on the twenty-sixth day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at McPherson on the twenty-eighth day of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. SIGNED at Liard on the day of, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the Chiefs and Head-

www.abc-clio.com

ORDER IN COUNCIL RATIFYING TREATY No. 11 P.C. 3985 PRIVY COUNCIL CANADA AT THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT OTTAWA, SATURDAY, the 22nd day of October, 1921. PRESENT: HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL WHEREAS the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs submits herewith Treaty Number Eleven made, in accordance with the terms of Order in Council of 14th March, 1921 (P.C. 686), by Henry Anthony Conroy, Esquire, who was appointed a Commissioner by the said Order in Council, to negotiate with the Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux, Hare and other Indians for the cession by the said Indians to the Crown of all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever in the territory north of the sixtieth parallel and along the Mackenzie river and the Arctic ocean in the Dominion of Canada. THEREFORE His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, is pleased to ratify the said Treaty Number Eleven, made and negotiated as hereinbefore recited, and the same is hereby ratified and confirmed accordingly. RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, Clerk of the Privy Council. The Honourable The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. Owing to the death of Commissioner Conroy on April 27, 1922, and to the fact that he had not had an opportunity during the summer of 1921 of obtaining the adhesion to the Treaty by the Slave Indians of the Liard district, it was necessary to make other arrangements. Accordingly the authority of His

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties, 1923

Excellency the Governor General in Council was obtained for the appointment of T. W. Harris, Indian agent at Fort Simpson, N.W.T., as Commissioner to secure this adhesion. Following is a copy of the Order in Council:— P.C. 993 CERTIFIED COPY of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 9th May, 1922 The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a Report, dated 2nd May, 1922, from the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, submitting, with reference to Order in Council of the 14th March, 1921, under which Mr. H. A. Conroy, Inspector for Treaty No. 8, was authorized to act as Commissioner to negotiate a Treaty (known as Treaty No. 11) with the Indians occupying the territory north of the 60th parallel and along the Mackenzie river to the Arctic coast, that owing to lack of time Mr. Conroy was unable to visit the Fort Liard Indians last year with a view to securing their adhesion to the treaty. The Minister states that owing to Mr. Conroy’s death, which occurred on the 27th April, 1922, it is essential that someone should be deputed to complete the treaty negotiations. The Minister, therefore, recommends that Mr. T. W. Harris, Indian agent at Fort Simpson, N.W.T., be authorized to complete the work entrusted to the late Mr. Conroy in connection with the treaty above mentioned. The Committe concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval. RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, Clerk of the Privy Council. The Honourable The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. Accordingly Commissioner Harris, accompanied by His Lordship Bishop Breynat and Reverend Father Moisan, visited Fort Liard on July 17th. The terms of the treaty having been explained by the Commissioner, the Chief and Headmen, who had previously been elected, signed the treaty on behalf of the Indians as indicated in the following Indenture:—

www.abc-clio.com

627

SIGNED at Liard on the seventeenth day of July, 1922, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after having been first interpreted and explained. ORDER IN COUNCIL RATIFYING ADHESION TO TREATY No. 11 March 29, 1923. The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, submit herewith for ratification and confirmation by Your Excellency in Council, an instrument, in duplicate, containing the adhesion to Treaty No. 11 of the Indians of Fort Liard taken the seventeenth day of July, 1922, by Mr. T. W. Harris, who was appointed by an Order of Your Excellency in Council of 9th May, 1922 (P.C. No. 993), as His Majesty’s Commissioner to take the said adhesion; one copy of the instrument to be returned to the Department of Indian Affairs and the other to be kept on record in the Privy Council Office. (Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, Clerk of the Privy Council. The Honourable The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.

Williams Treaties, 1923 Oct. 31, 1923 INDIAN TREATY ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on the thirty-first day of October, in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, between His Most Gracious Majesty, George the Fifth, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, by His Commissioners: Angus Seymour Williams, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, and Departmental Solicitor of the Department of Indian Affairs; Robert Victor Sinclair, of the said City of Ottawa, Esquire, One of His Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law, and Uriah McFadden, of the City of Sault Sainte Marie, in the said Province, Esquire, one of His Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law; the said Angus Seymour Williams, Chairman of the said Commission, representing the Dominion of Canada, and the said Robert Victor Sinclair and Uriah McFadden,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

628

Williams Treaties, 1923

representing the Province of Ontario, of the One Part; and the Members of the Chippewa Tribe, inhabiting, as members of Bands thereof, reserves at Christian Island, Georgina Island and Rama, all in the Province of Ontario, by their Chiefs and Headmen, of the Other Part. WHEREAS, the Chippewa Tribe above described, having claimed to be entitled to certain interests in the lands in the Province of Ontario, hereinafter described, such interests being the Indian title of the said tribe to fishing, hunting and trapping rights over the said lands, of which said rights His Majesty through His said Commissioners, is desirous of obtaining a surrender, and for such purpose has appointed the said Commissioners, with power on behalf of His said Majesty, to enquire into the validity of the claims of the said tribe, and, in the event of the said Commissioners determining in favour of the validity thereof, to negotiate a treaty with the said tribe for the surrender of the said rights upon the payment of such compensation therefor as may seem to the said Commissioners to be just and proper: AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, having duly made the said enquiry, have determined in favour of the validity of the said rights. AND WHEREAS the Indians belonging to the said tribe, having been duly convened in council, at the respective places named hereunder, and having been requested by the said Commissioners to name certain chiefs and headmen to be authorized on their behalf to conduct negotiations with the said Commissioners for a surrender of the said rights and to sign a treaty in respect thereof and to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by the said tribe and by the respective bands thereof inhabiting the said reserves, of such obligations as shall be assumed by them under such treaty, the said Indians have therefore appointed for the purpose aforesaid the several chiefs and headmen who have subscribed to this treaty: AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, acting under the powers in them reposed as aforesaid, have negotiated the present treaty with the said tribe: NOW THEREFORE THIS TREATY WITNESSETH that the said tribe and the Indians composing the same, occupying as members of bands the said

www.abc-clio.com

reserves, by their chiefs and headmen, duly authorized thereunto, as aforesaid, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King and His Successors forever, all their right, title, interest, claim, demand and privileges whatsoever, in, to, upon, or in respect of the lands and premises described as follows, that is to say: FIRSTLY: All that parcel of land situate in the Province of Ontario and described as commencing on the northeasterly shore of Georgian Bay at that mouth of the French River which forms the boundary between the District of Parry Sound and the District of Sudbury; thence southerly and easterly along the shores of Georgian Bay to that point on Matchedash Bay where the land included in the surrender of the eighteenth day of November, 1815, of record in Book of Surrenders, Volume I, is reached, and including all the islands in the Georgian Bay waters in which the Indians making this treaty have any interest; thence along the easterly limit of the said lands purchased in 1815 to the Narrows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence due east across the said Narrows; thence southerly and easterly following the east side of the Narrows and the north shore of Lake Simcoe to the foot of McPhee Bay off the northerly part of Lake Simcoe; thence by a straight line easterly to a point thirty-three miles north of the northwest corner of the Township of Rawdon measured along the division line between the Counties of Hastings and Peterborough, which point is the most western northwest corner of the parcel surrendered on the twenty-eight day of November, 1822 (noted in Volume I of the Book of Surrenders as number twentyseven and one-quarter, 271/4); thence following the north and west boundaries of the last mentioned parcel to the Ottawa River; thence westerly along the interprovincial boundary to the mouth of the Mattawa River; thence westerly by the waters of Mattawa River, Talon Chute and Talon Lake, Turtle Lake, and Trout Lake to the westerly point of Trout Lake; thence to the shore of Lake Nipissing at North Bay; thence by the north shore of Lake Nipissing to the French River; thence by those waters along the division line between the Districts of Parry Sound and Sudbury to the place of commencement: Excepting thereout and therefrom those lands which have already been set aside as Indian Reserves. The parcel hereby surrendered

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties, 1923

contains seventeen thousand, six hundred square miles, more or less. SECONDLY: All that parcel of land situate in the Province of Ontario and described as parts of the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario and York, commencing at the point where the easterly limit of that portion of the lands said to have been ceded in 1787, which was confirmed on the first day of August, 1805, of record as number thirteen in Volume I of the Book of Surrenders, intersects the northerly shore of Lake Ontario; thence northerly along the said easterly and northerly limits of the confirmed tract to the Holland River; thence northerly along the Holland River and along the westerly shore of Lake Simcoe and Kempenfelt Bay to the Narrows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence southeasterly along the shores of Lake Simcoe to the Talbot River; thence easterly along the Talbot River to the boundary between the Townships of Victoria and Ontario; thence southerly along that boundary to the northwest angle of the Township of Darlington; thence along the northerly boundary line of the Townships of Darlington, Clarke, Hope and Hamilton to Rice Lake; thence along the southern shore of said lake to River Trent along the River Trent to the Bay of Quinte; thence westerly and southerly along the shore of the Bay of Quinte to the road leading to Carrying Place and Wellers Bay; thence westerly along the northern shore of Lake Ontario to the place of beginning; excepting thereout and therefrom those lands which have already been set aside as Indian reserves. The land hereby conveyed contains two thousand, five hundred square miles more or less. AND ALSO all the right, title, interest, claim, demand and privileges whatsoever of the said Indians, in, to, upon or in respect of all other lands, situate in the Province of Ontario to which they ever had, now have, or now claim to have any right, title, interest, claim, demand or privileges, except such reserves as have heretofore been set apart for them by His Majesty the King. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to His Majesty the King and His Successors forever: AND THIS TREATY FURTHER WITNESSETH that in consideration of the aforesaid surrender, His

www.abc-clio.com

629

Majesty, through His said Commissioners, hereby agrees, upon the execution of a treaty similar to this treaty by the Mississauga tribe inhabiting as members of bands, reserves at Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scugog Lake and Alderville, in the Province of Ontario, to pay to each member of the said Chippewa tribe, being also a member of one of the said bands, the sum of twenty-five dollars, to be paid through the Indian agents for the respective bands, within a reasonable time after the execution of the said treaties, and a further sum of —233,375.00 dollars — to be administered for the said tribe by His Majesty’s Department of Indian Affairs under and pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter 43 and its amendments: Making together the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. AND THE UNDERSIGNED chiefs and headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, do hereby solemnly covenant, promise and agree to strictly observe this treaty in all respects and that they will not, nor will any of them, nor will any of the Indians whom they represent, molest or interfere with the person or property of anyone who now inhabits or shall hereafter inhabit any portion of the lands covered by this treaty, or interfere with, trouble, or molest any person passing or travelling through the said lands or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian, party to this treaty, who may hereafter offend against the stipulations hereof or infringe the laws in force in the lands covered hereby: AND IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD that this treaty is subject to an agreement dated the day of April, A.D. 1923, made between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario, a copy of which is hereto attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands and seals at the places and times hereinafter set forth, in the year herein first above written. SIGNED AND SEALED at Georgina Island on the thirty-first day of October, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the under-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

630

Williams Treaties, 1923

signed witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures] SIGNED AND SEALED at Christian Island on the third day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures] SIGNED AND SEALED at Rama on the seventh day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures]

AND WHEREAS a departmental enquiry made by the Department of Indian Affairs indicates that the said claim has such probable validity as to justify and require further investigation, and if found valid to be satisfied on such just and fair terms as may be settled by a treaty of surrender. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT made in pursuance of certian statutes of Canada and of the Province of Ontario, both intituled “an Act for the settlement of certain questions between the Governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian Lands,” the Statute of Canada having been passed in the 54th and 55th years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and chaptered 5, and the statute of Ontario in the 54th year of Her Majesty’s said reign and chaptered 3. WITNESSETH THAT the Governments of Canada and of the Province of Ontario have agreed as follows:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this — of April, 1923, BETWEEN: The Government of the Dominion of Canada, acting herein by the Honourable Charles Stewart, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, of the first part, AND The Government of the Province of Ontario, acting herein by the Honourable Beniah Bowman, Minister of Lands and Forests for the said Province, of the other part WHEREAS certain Indians of the Chippewa and Mississauga tribes claim that the said tribes were and are entitled to a certain interest in lands in the Province of Ontario to which the Indian title has never been extinguished by surrender or otherwise, the said lands being described as parts of the counties of Renfrew, Hastings, Haliburton, Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing, and being bounded on the south and east by the lands included in the surrenders of the Indian title made on the 18th of November, 1815, the 5th of November, 1818, and November, 1822; on the north by the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers and Lake Nipissing, and on the west by the lands included in the surrender of the Indian title made in 1850, known as the Robinson-Huron surrender, and by the Georgian Bay, the area in question including about 10,719 square miles.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1. The Government of Canada will, pursuant to Part I of the Enquiries Act, R.S.C., 1906, c. 104, and amendments, appoint three persons as commissioners to enquire into the validity of the claim of the Chippewa and Mississauga Indians aforesaid, and will empower the said commissioners, in the event of their determining in favour of the validity of the said claim, to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians for the surrender of the said lands upon payment of such compensation as may be fixed by such treaty. 2. Of the three commissioners so named, one shall be selected by the Government of Canada, who shall be Chairman of the Commission, and the remaining two shall be selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests for the Province of Ontario and notified to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 3. The question of the validity of said claim may be determined by any two of the said Commissioners and it shall be necessary that at least two of them of whom the chairman shall be one shall concur in any treaty which may be negotiated. 4. The expenses of the said commission, including the remuneration and expenses of the commissioners and any expenses

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties, 1923

incurred for securing the attendance of witnesses or otherwise, shall be payable by the Government of Canada, but the rates of remuneration of each of the commissioners selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests for the Province of Ontario shall be agreed upon between him and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs before the Constitution of the Commission. 5. In the event of the commissioners negotiating a treaty with the Indians the compensation to be paid to such Indians shall be payable to the Dominion of Canada by the Province of Ontario from time to time in accordance with the terms of the treaty of surrender, and shall be applied by the Dominion of Canada in accordance with the said terms. 6. In the event of provision being made by such treaty of surrender for the setting apart of reserves for the Indians, the Dominion of Canada will bear the expense to be incurred in the location and survey thereof, and the Province of Ontario will concur in the setting apart of such reserves. 7. All such reserves shall be administered by the Dominion of Canada for the benefit of the band or bands of Indians to which each may be allotted; portions thereof may, upon their surrender for the purpose by the said band or bands, be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada, and the proceeds of such sale, lease or other disposition applied for the benefit of such band or bands, provided, however, that in the event of the band or bands to which any such reserve has been allotted becoming extinct, or if for any other reason such reserve or such portion thereof as remains undisposed of is declared by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to be no longer required for the benefit of the said band or bands, the same shall thereafter be administered by and for the benefit of the Province of Ontario, and any balance of the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of any portion thereof then remaining under the control of the Dominion of Canada shall,

www.abc-clio.com

631

so far as the same is not still required to be applied for the benefit of the said band or bands of Indians, be paid to the Province of Ontario, together with accrued unexpended simple interest thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF these presents have been signed by the parties thereto. Copy Of The Treaty Made November 15, 1923 Between His Majesty The King And The Mississauga Indians Of Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scugog Lake And Alderville

INDIAN TREATY Nov. 15, 1923 ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on the fifteenth day of November in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, between His Most Gracious Majesty, George the Fifth, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, by His Commissioners, Angus Seymour Williams, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, and Departmental Solicitor of the Department of Indian Affairs: Robert Victor Sinclair, of the said City of Ottawa, Esquire, one of His Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law, and Uriah McFadden, of the City of Sault Sainte Marie, in the said Province, Esquire, one of His Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law, the said Angus Seymour Williams, Chairman of the said Commission, representing the Dominion of Canada, and the said Robert Victor Sinclair and Uriah McFadden, representing the Province of Ontario, of the One Part, and the members of the Mississauga Tribe, inhabiting, as members of bands thereof, reserves at Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scugog Lake and Alderville, all in the Province of Ontario, by their chiefs and headmen, of the Other Part. WHEREAS, the Mississauga Tribe above described, having claimed to be entitled to certain interests in the lands in the Province of Ontario, hereinafter described, such interests being the Indian title of the said tribe to fishing, hunting and trapping rights over the said lands, of which said rights, His Majesty, through His said Commissioners, is desirous of obtaining a surrender, and for such

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

632

Williams Treaties, 1923

purpose has appointed the said Commissioners, with power on behalf of His said Majesty, to enquire into the validity of the claims of the said tribe, and, in the event of the said Commissioners determining in favour of the validity thereof, to negotiate a treaty with the said tribe for the surrender of the said rights upon the payment of such compensation therefor as may seem to the said Commissioners to be just and proper: AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, having duly made the said enquiry, have determined in favour of the validity of the said rights. AND WHEREAS the Indians belonging to the said tribe, having been duly convened in Council, at the respective places named hereunder, and having been requested by the said Commissioners to name certain chiefs and headmen to be authorized on their behalf to conduct negotiations with the said Commissioners for a surrender of the said rights and to sign a treaty in respect thereof and to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by the said tribe and by the respective bands thereof inhabiting the said reserves, of such obligations as shall be assumed by them under such treaty, the said Indians have therefore appointed for the purposes aforesaid the several chiefs and headmen who have subscribed to this treaty: AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, acting under the powers in them reposed as aforesaid, have negotiated the present treaty with the said tribe: NOW THEREFORE THIS TREATY WITNESSETH that the said tribe and the Indians composing the same, occupying as members of bands the said reserves, by their chiefs and headmen, duly authorized thereunto as aforesaid, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King and His Successors forever, all their right, title, interest, claim, demand and privileges whatsoever, in, to, upon, or in respect of the lands and premises described as follows, that is to say: FIRSTLY: All that parcel of land situate in the Province of Ontario and described as commencing on the northeasterly shore of Georgian Bay at that mouth of the French River which forms the boundary between the District of Parry Sound and the District of Sudbury; thence southerly and easterly

www.abc-clio.com

along the shores of Georgian Bay to that point on Matchedash Bay where the land included in the surrender of the eighteenth day of November, 1815, of record in Book of Surrenders, Volume One, is reached, and including all the islands in the Georgian Bay waters in which the Indians making this treaty have any interest; thence along the easterly limit of the said lands purchased in 1815 to the Narrows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence due east across the said Narrows; thence southerly and easterly following the east side of the Narrows and the north shore of Simcoe to the foot of McPhee Bay off the northerly part of Lake Simcoe; thence by a straight line easterly to a point thirty-three miles north of the northwest corner of the Township of Rawdon measured along the division line between the Counties of Hastings and Peterborough, which point is the most western northwest corner of the parcel surrendered on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1822 (noted in Volume One of the Book of Surrenders as number twenty-seven and one-quarter, 271/4); thence following the north and west boundaries of the last mentioned parcel to the Ottawa River; thence westerly along the interprovincial boundary to the mouth of the Mattawa River; thence westerly along the interprovincial boundary to the mouth of the Mattawa River, Talon Chute and Talon Lake, Turtle Lake, and Trout Lake to the westerly point of Trout Lake; thence to the shore of Lake Nipissing at North Bay; thence by the north shore of Lake Nipissing to the French River; thence by those waters along the division line between the Districts of Parry Sound and Sudbury to the place of commencement: Excepting thereout and therefrom those lands which have already been set aside as Indian reserves. The parcel hereby surrendered contains seventeen thousand, six hundred square miles, more or less. SECONDLY: All that parcel of land situate in the Province of Ontario and described as parts of the Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario and York, commencing at the point where the easterly limit of that portion of the lands said to have been ceded in 1787, which was confirmed on the first of August, 1805, of record as number thirteen in Volume One, of the Book of Surrenders, intersects the northerly shore of Lake Ontario; thence northerly along the said easterly and northerly limits of the confirmed tract to the Holland River; thence northerly along the Holland

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties, 1923

River and along the westerly shore of Lake Simcoe and Kempenfelt Bay to the Narrows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence southeasterly along the shores of Lake Simcoe to the Talbot River; thence easterly along the Talbot River to the boundary between the Counties of Victoria and Ontario; thence southerly along that boundary to the northwest angle of the Township of Darlington; thence along the northerly boundary line of the Townships of Darlington, Clarke, Hope and Hamilton to Rice Lake; thence along the southern shore of said lake to River Trent along the River Trent to the Bay of Quinte; thence westerly and southerly along the shore of the Bay of Quinte to the road leading to Carrying Place and Weller ’s Bay; thence westerly along the northern shore of Lake Ontario to the place of beginning: Excepting thereout and therefrom those lands which have already been set aside as Indian Reserves. The land hereby conveyed contains two thousand, five hundred square miles more or less. AND ALSO all the right, title, interest, claim, demand and privileges whatsoever of the said Indians, in, to, upon or in respect of all other lands situate in the Province of Ontario to which they ever had, now have, or now claim to have any right, title, interest, claim, demand or privileges, except such reserves as have heretofore been set apart for them by His Majesty the King. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to His Majesty the King and His Successors forever: AND THIS TREATY FURTHER WITNESSETH that in consideration of the aforesaid surrender, His Majesty, through His said Commissioners, hereby agrees, upon the execution of a treaty similar to this treaty by the Chippewa Tribe inhabiting as members of bands, reserves at Christian Island, Georgina Island and Rama, in the Province of Ontario, to pay to each member of the said Mississauga Tribe, being also a member of one of the said bands, the sum of twenty-five dollars, to be paid through the Indian agents for the respective bands, with a reasonable time after the execution of the said treaties, and a further sum of —233,425.00 dollars— to be administered for the said tribe by His Majesty’s Department of Indian Affairs under and pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter Forty-

www.abc-clio.com

633

three and its amendments; making together the sum of 250,000.00 dollars. AND THE UNDERSIGNED chiefs and headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, do hereby solemnly covenant, promise and agree to strictly observe this treaty in all respects and that they will not, nor will any of them, nor will any of the Indians whom they represent, molest or interfere with the person or property of anyone who now inhabits or shall hereafter inhabit any portion of the lands covered by this treaty, or interfere with, trouble, or molest any person passing or travelling through the said lands or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian, party to this treaty, who may hereafter offend against the stipulations hereof or infringe the laws in force in the lands covered hereby: AND IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD that this treaty is subject to an agreement dated the day of April, A.D. 1923, made between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario, a copy of which is hereto attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Commissioners and the said chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their hands and seals at the places and times hereinafter set forth, in the year herein first above written. SIGNED AND SEALED at Alderville on the nineteenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures] SIGNED AND SEALED at Mud Lake on the fifteenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures] SIGNED AND SEALED at Rice Lake on the sixteenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

634

Williams Treaties, 1923

Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures] SIGNED AND SEALED at Scugog Lake on the twenty-first day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first having been interpreted and explained. [signatures]

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT made in pursuance of certian statutes of Canada and of the Province of Ontario, both intituled “an Act for the settlement of certain questions between the Governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian Lands,” the Statute of Canada having been passed in the 54th and 55th years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and chaptered 5, and the statute of Ontario in the 54th year of Her Majesty’s said reign and chaptered 3. WITNESSETH THAT the Governments of Canada and of the Province of Ontario have agreed as follows: —

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this of April, 1923, BETWEEN: The Government of the Dominion of Canada, acting herein by the Honourable Charles Stewart, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, of the first part, AND The Government of the Province of Ontario, acting herein by the Honourable Beniah Bowman, Minister of Lands and Forests for the said Province, of the other part WHEREAS certain Indians of the Chippewa and Mississauga tribes claim that the said tribes were and are entitled to a certain interest in lands in the Province of Ontario to which the Indian title has never been extinguished by surrender or otherwise, the said lands being described as parts of the counties of Renfrew, Hastings, Haliburton, Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing, and being bounded on the south and east by the lands included in the surrenders of the Indian title made on the 18th of November, 1815, the 5th of November, 1818, and November, 1822; on the north by the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers and Lake Nipissing, and on the west by the lands included in the surrender of the Indian title made in 1850, known as the Robinson-Huron surrender, and by the Georgian Bay, the area in question including about 10,719 square miles. AND WHEREAS a departmental enquiry made by the Department of Indian Affairs indicates that the said claim has such probable validity as to justify and require further investigation, and if found valid to be satisfied on such just and fair terms as may be settled by a treaty of surrender.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1. The Government of Canada will, pursuant to Part I of the Enquiries Act, R.S.C., 1906, c. 104, and amendments, appoint three persons as commissioners to enquire into the validity of the claim of the Chippewa and Mississauga Indians aforesaid, and will empower the said commissioners, in the event of their determining in favour of the validity of the said claim, to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians for the surrender of the said lands upon payment of such compensation as may be fixed by such treaty. 2. Of the three commissioners so named, one shall be selected by the Government of Canada, who shall be Chairman of the Commission, and the remaining two shall be selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests for the Province of Ontario and notified to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 3. The question of the validity of said claim may be determined by any two of the said Commissioners and it shall be necessary that at least two of them of whom the chairman shall be one shall concur in any treaty which may be negotiated. 4. The expenses of the said commission, including the remuneration and expenses of the commissioners and any expenses incurred for securing the attendance of witnesses or otherwise, shall be payable by the Government of Canada, but the rates of remuneration of each of the commissioners selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests for the Province of Ontario shall be agreed upon between him and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs before the Constitution of the Commission.

1-800-368-6868

Williams Treaties, 1923

5. In the event of the commissioners negotiating a treaty with the Indians the compensation to be paid to such Indians shall be payable to the Dominion of Canada by the Province of Ontario from time to time in accordance with the terms of the treaty of surrender, and shall be applied by the Dominion of Canada in accordance with the said terms. 6. In the event of provision being made by such treaty of surrender for the setting apart of reserves for the Indians, the Dominion of Canada will bear the expense to be incurred in the location and survey thereof, and the Province of Ontario will concur in the setting apart of such reserves. 7. All such reserves shall be administered by the Dominion of Canada for the benefit of the band or bands of Indians to which each may be allotted; portions thereof may, upon their surrender for the purpose by the said band or bands, be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada, and the proceeds of such sale, lease or other disposition applied for the benefit of such band or bands, provided, however, that in the event of the band or bands to which any such reserve has been allotted becoming extinct, or if for any other reason such reserve or such portion thereof as remains undis-

www.abc-clio.com

635

posed of is declared by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to be no longer required for the benefit of the said band or bands, the same shall thereafter be administered by and for the benefit of the Province of Ontario, and any balance of the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of any portion thereof then remaining under the control of the Dominion of Canada shall, so far as the same is not still required to be applied for the benefit of the said band or bands of Indians, be paid to the Province of Ontario, together with accrued unexpended simple interest thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF these presents have been signed by the parties thereto. Sources: All United States treaty texts from Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Volume. II (Treaties), compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904. Text used with the permission of the Oklahoma State University Library Electronic Publishing Center. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler /index.htm All Canadian treaty texts from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. http://www.ainc-inac .gc.ca

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings Tribal Name Abenaki (western) Absaroke Adai Adamstown Alabama Aleut Anadarko Anishinabe Apache

Apache Mohave Appomattoc Arapahoe Arikara Assiniboine Athapaskan Atsina Aztec Bannock Bear River Indians Bellabella Bellacoola Beothuk Blackfeet/Blackfoot Blood Boothroyd Brule Sioux Caddo Cahuilla Calusa Campo Carrier Catawba Cayuga Cayuse Chakchiuma Chehalis Chemainus

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Alnonba, Abnaki Crow Nateo Upper Mattaponi Alibamu Alutiiq, Unangan Nadaco Chippewa, Ojibwa N de,Tinneh, Dine, Tinde, Unde, Shis Inde, Aravaipa, Bedonkohe, Chihene, Chiricahua, Chokonen, Cibecue, Jicarilla, Kiowa, Lipan, Mescalero, Mimbres, Nednhi, Tonto, Yuma Yavapai Apamatuks Inunaina, Atsina Northern Pawnee, Ricara, Ree Hohe Dene Haaninin Nahua, Nahuatl Panaiti Niekeni Heiltsuqu, Heiltsuk Nuxalk Beathunk, Betoukuag, Macquajeet, Red Indians, Skraelling, Ulno Niitsitapi, Nitsi-tapi, Piegan, Ahpikuni, Pikuni (northern); Siksika, Sisaka (southern), Sihasapa, Ahkainah Kainai, Ahkainah Chomok Si can gu Adai, Eyeish, Hasinai, Hainai, Kadohodacho, Kadohadacho Confederacy, Natchitoches Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Kawasic, Morongo, Los Coyotes, Painakic, Wanikik Caloosa, Calos, Calosa, Carlos, Muspa Kumeyaay Dakelh, Wet’suwet’en Esaw, Iswa, Iyeye, Nieye, Ushery Kweniogwen, Iroquois Wailetpu, Te-taw-ken Shaktci Homma Copalis, Humptulips, Qwaya, Satsop, Sts’Ailes, Wynoochee Tsa-mee-nis

R-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-2

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Chemehuevi Chetco Cherokee Cheyenne Chilcotin Chimakum Chippewa Chitimacha Choctaw Chumash Clackamas Clallam Cocopah Coeur d’Alene Comanche Comox Copane Cora Coree Coushatta Cree Creek Crow Cupenos Cuthead Dakelh Delaware Dieguenos Ditidaht Eskimo Equimalt Fox Gabrieleno Ganawese Gitanyow Gitxsan Goshute Gros Ventre Gwich’in Hainai Havasupai Heiltsuk Hidatsa Hohokam Hopi Hualapai Huichol

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Nuwu, Tantawats Tolowa Tsa-la-gi, Ani-yun-wiya, Anikituhwagi, Keetowah Dzi tsi stas, Sowonia (southern), O mi sis (northern), Tse-tsehesestaestse Esdilagh, Tl’esqox, Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in Aqokdlo Anishinabe, Ojibwa Chawasha, Pantch-pinunkansh, Washa, Yagenechito Chakchiuma, Chatot, Cha’ta Santa Barbara Indians Guithlakimas S’klallam, Nusklaim, Tlalem Xawitt Kunyavaei Skitswish, Schee chu’umsch, Schitsu’umsh Detsanayuka, Kotsoteka, Nermernuh, Noconi, Nokoni, Numunuu, Padouca (Sioux word), Penateka, Pennande, Quahadi, Yamparika Catloltx Kopano, Quevenes Nayarit Coranine Koasati, Acoste Kenistenoag, Iyiniwok, Nehiawak or Nay-hee-uh-wuk (Plains Cree), Sah-cow-ee-noo-wuk (bush Cree) Muscogee, Abihika, Abeika, Hitchiti, Homashko Absaroke, Apsaalooke Kuupangaxwichem Pabaksa Carrier Lenni Lenape, Lenape, Abnaki, Alnanbai, Wampanoag, Munsee, Unami, Unalachitgo, Powhatan-Renápe Comeya, Tipai, Ipai, Kumeyaay Nitinaht Inuit, Inupiat, Inuvialuit, Yupik, Alutiiq Is-Whoy-Malth Mesquaki, Meskwaki, Mshkwa’kiitha Tongva Conoys, Piscataways Kitwancool Tsimshian Kusiutta Atsina (prairie), Hidatsa (Missouri), A’ani’, Ah-ah-nee-nin, Minnetaree Loucheux Ioni Suppai Hailhazakv Gros Venture Hoo-hoogam Hopitu, Hopitu Shinumu, Moqui, Hapeka Hwal’bay, Walapai Wirrarika, Wixalika

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-3

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Hupa Huron Ingalik Athapaskans Iowa Iroquois Jemez Jicarilla Apache Kalispel Kamia Kansa Kato Keres Kickapoo Kiowa Kiowa Apache Klamath Klickitat Kootenai Koso Karok Ktunaxa Kumeyaay Kutchin Kutenai Lancandon Lemhi Shoshone Loucheux Lillooet Lipan Lower Sioux Luiseño Lumbee Maicopa Makah Mandan Manhattan Manso Maricopa Miami Micmac Miniconjou Mi’kmaq Missouri Mixtec Moapa Modoc Mohave Mohawk Mohican Molala

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Natinnohhoi Wendat, Wyandot Deg Het’an Pahodja Haudenosaunee, Hodenosaunee, Ongwanosionni, Hotinonshonni Tuwa Tinde Pend d’Oreilles Tipai Hutanga, Kansas, Kanza, Kaw, Tlokeang Pueblo, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Zia Kiwigapawa Kwuda, Tepda, Tepkinago, Gaigwu, Kompabianta, Kauigu Nadiisha Dena Eukshikni Maklaks, Auksni Qwulhhwaipum Kuronoqa, Kutenai, Kootenay, Yaqan nukiy, Akun’kunik’, Ktunaxa Panamint Karuk, Arra-arra Kootenay Diegueño, Barona, Sycuan, Viejas, Campo, Cuyapaipe, Ewiiaapaayp Gwich’in Asanka Maya, Hach Winik Agaidika, Salmon Eaters, Tukudika, Sheep Eater Gwich’in Lil’wat, St’át’imc, T’it’kit Naizhan Mdewakanton, Wahpekute Ataxum, La Jolla, Pechanga, Soboba, Quechnajuichom Cheraw Xalychidom Piipaash, Pipatsji Kwenetchechat, Kwi-dai-da’ch Metutahanke or Mawatani (after 1837), Numakaki (before 1837) Rechgawawank Maise, Mansa, Manse, Manxo, Gorreta, Gorrite, Tanpachoa Xalychidom Piipaash, Xalchidom Pii-pash, Pipatsje, Pee-posh Twightwis, Twa-h-twa-h, Oumameg, Pkiiwileni Mi’kmaq Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Minnicoujou Lnu’k, L’nu’k Niutachi Ñusabi, Nusabi Moapariats Moatokni, Okkowish Mojave, Tzinamaa, Ahamakav, Hamakhava Kanienkahaka, Kaniengehage, Abenaki, Iroquois, Akwesasne Muh-he-con-neok, Mahikan, Mahican Latiwe

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-4

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Mono Moratoc Mosopelea Munsee Muscogee Nanticoke Navajo Nez Perce Nisga’a Nootka Northern Ojibwa Nuu-chah-nulth Nuxalk Ogallala Ojibwa Okanagon Omaha Oneida Onondaga Oohenupa Osage Ottawa Otto Oulaouaes Oweekeno Pacheenaht Paiute Papagos Parianuc Passamaquoddy Patchogue Pawnee Pechanga Pecos Pend d’Oreilles Penobscot Petun Piegan Pima Piro Pit River Poosepatuck Popolucas Pyramid Lake Paiute Quapaw Quechan Quileute Quinault Sac and Fox Sahwnee

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Monache Nottoway Ofom Minasinink, Homenethiki Creek, Homashko Unalachtgo, Onehtikoki Diné, Dineh, Tenuai, Navaho Nee-me-poo, Nimipu, Kamuinu, Tsutpeli, Sahaptin, Chopunnish Tsimshian Nuu-chah-nulth Saulteaux, Sauteux Nootka Kimsquit, Kwalhnmc, South Bentick Sutslmc, Taliyumc Okandanda Chippewa, Anishinabe, Missisauga, Odjbway, Saginaw Isonkuaili UmonHon Iroquois Iroquois Two Kettle, Oohenonpa Wa-Shah-She, Wakon, Wazhazhe Adawe, Otawaki Chewaerae Necariages Kwakiutl, Oweehena Nootka Numa, Nuwuvi, Kuyuiticutta Tohono O’odham, Ak-chin, Yohono Au’autam White River Utes Peskedemakddi Unkechaug Pariki, Panyi, Chahiksichahiks, Ckirihki Kuruuriki Luiseño Pueblos from Jemez Kalispel Pannawanbskek, Penaubsket Khionontateronon, Tionontati Blood, Kainai, Pikuni, Pigunni, Ahpikuni Onk Akimel Au-authm, Akimel O’odham, A-atam, Akimul Au’autam, Tohono O’odham (incorrectly) Tortuga Achomawi, Atsugewi Unkechaug Chochos Kuyuidokado Quapah, Akansea, Ouaguapas, Ugakhpa Yuma Quil-leh-ute Qui-nai-elts Sauk, Asakiwaki, Meshkwakihug, Fox Shawadasay

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-5

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Salish Saanich Sans Arc Santee Saponi Sauk Scioto Seminole Seneca Serrano Shawnee Shoshone Sioux

Sissipahaw Skagit Skoskomish Squinamish Slotas Songish Southern Paiute St. Francis St. Mary’s Indian Band St. Regis Mohawk Stockbridge Snuneymuxw Susquehanna Taidnapam Tarahumara Taviwac Tejas Tenino Tequistlatecos Teton Tewa Thompson Tigua Tillamook Timucua T’it’kit Tiwa Tlaoquiaht Tlatlasikwala Tobacco Toltec Tonkawa Tubatulabal

www.abc-clio.com

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Okinagan, Slathead Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tsartlip, Tseycum, Malahat Itazipco Sisseton Monasukapanough Hothaaki, Sac, Sack, Sock, Thakiki (Five Nations of the Scioto Plains) Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware, Munsee, Seneca Ikaniuksalgi, Alachua, Mikasuki Iroquois Cowangachem, Mohineyam, Qawishwallanavetum, Yuhavitam Savannah, Chillicothe, Hathawekela, Mequachake, Piqua Shoshoni, Snake, Nimi, Tukudeka, Agaidika Brule, Dakota, Hunkpapa, Isanyati, Itazipco, Lakota, Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Nakota, Ocheti Shakowin, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu, Sihasapa, Sisseton, Sisitonwan, Teton, Titunwan Haw Humaluh Twana Swinomish Red River Metis Lkungen Numa Abenaki A’qam, Ktunaxa Akwesasne, Kaniengehage Mahican Nanaimo Susquehannock, Conestoga, Minqua, Andaste Upper Cowlitz Raramuri Uncompahgre Ute Hasinai, Cenis Melilema Chontales of Oaxaca Brule, Hunkpapa, Itazipco, Mnikowoju, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu, Sihasapa, Titunwan Pueblo, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Tesuque Nlaka’pamux Pueblo, Tiwa, Tortuga Killamuck Utina, Acuera Lillooet Pueblo, Tortuga Clayoquot Nuwitti Khionontateronon, Tionontati Chiaimeca Mochanecatoca Titskan Watitch, Titskanwatitch, Tonkaweya Bahkanapul, Kern River

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-6

Resources

Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.) Tribal Name Tunica Tuscarora Tututni Twana Two Kettle Umpqua Uncompahgre Ute Upper Chehalis Upper Sioux Ute

Viejas Wampanoag Wappo Warm Springs Wasco Watlala Wea Whilkut Winnebago Wichita Winik Wishram Wyandot Yakama Yaqui Yazoo Yoncalla Yuchi Yuma Zapotec Zuni

Alternate Tribal Name(s) Yoron Skarure, Iroquois, Coree Tolowa Tuadhu Oohenonpa, Oohenupa Etnemitane Taviwac Kwaiailk Sisseton, Wahpeton Noochi, Notch, Nuciu, Yamparka, Parianuc, Taviwac, Wiminuc, Kapota, Muwac, Cumumba, Tumpanuwac, Uinta-ats, Pahvant, San Pitch, and Sheberetch Quimi Pokanoket Ashochimi Tilkuni Galasquo Katlagakya Eel River, Gros, Kilataks, Mangakekis, Pepicokia, Peticotias, Piankeshaw, Wawiyatanwa Redwood Indians Winipig Kitikiti’sh, Wia Chitch (Choctaw word) Maya Ilaxluit, Tlakluit Huron, Talamatans Waptailmin, Pakiutlema, Yakima Yoeme, Surem, Hiakim Chakchiuma Tchayankeld Chisa Quechan, Euqchan Binigulaza Ashiwi, Taa Ashiwani

Source: Phil Konstantin

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-7

Tribal Name Meanings Tribal Name A’ani’ Abnaki Achomawi Acolapissa Agaidika Ahousaht Ahtena Aitchelitz Akun’kunik’ Akwesasne Alabama Apache Apalachicola Apalachee A’qam Arikara Assiniboine Atakapa Atsina Atsugewi Avoyel Bayogoula Bedonkohe (Apache) Bidai Binigulaza Brule Caddo Cahuilla Calusa Canim Catawba Cayuga Cayuse Chakchiuma Cheam Chehalis Chemehuevi Cherokee Cheslatta Chetco Cheyenne Chickahominy Chihene (Apache) Chilcotin Chipewyan Chitimacha Chokonen (Apache) Chontal Choula

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning white clay people those living at the sunrise (easterners) river, people that live at the river those who listen and see salmon eaters facing opposite from the ocean, people living with their backs to the land and mountains ice people bottom people of the place of the flying head land where the partridge drums I clear the thicket enemy (Zuni word) people of the other side people of the other side people of the dense forest or brush horns or elk people, or corn eaters ones who cook using stones (Ojibwa word) man eater white clay people hat creek indians people of the rocks people of the bayou in front at the end people brushwood (Caddo word) people of the clouds burned thighs true chiefs leader, master, powerful nation (all questionable) fierce people canoe, broken rock river people place where boats were taken out, place locusts were taken out, people at the mucky land people of the stones or rocks (French-Canadian word) red crawfish people wild strawberry place, the place to always get strawberries sand, beating heart those that play with fish (Mojave word) cave people (Choctaw word), people of different speech (Creek word) top of a small mountain, small rock mountain at the east side close to the mouth of the stream red talkers (Dakota word), little Cree (Lakota word) hominy people red paint people young man river pointed skins (Cree word) men altogether red, they have cooking vessels rising sun people stranger (Nahuatl word) fox

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-8

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Chowanoc Chumash Clallam Clatsop Clayoquot Cocopah Coeur d’Alene Comanche Comox Cowichan Crow Dakelh Dakota Ehdiitat Gwich’in Erie Eskimo Esquimalt Fox Gingolx Gitanmaax Gitwangak Gwich’in Gros Ventre Hach winik Hagwilget Han Haudenosaunee Havasupai Heiltsuk Hesquiaht Hidatsa Hiute Hohokam Honniasont Hopi Houma Hualapai Huchnom Huichol Hul’qumi’num Hunkpapa Hupa Huron Hwal’bay (Hualapai) Ihanktonwan Ihanktonwana Iowa Iroquois Jatibonicu Jatibonuco

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning people at the south people who make the shell bead money strong people dried salmon people of other tribes river people those who are found here or heart of an awl (French words) anyone who wants to fight me all the time (Ute word) place of abundance warm country, land warmed by the sun crow, sparrowhawk, bird people, people of the large-beaked bird people who travel by water allie people who live among timber or spruce long tail or cat people (Iroquois word) eaters of raw meat (Algonquin or Cree word) the place of gradually shoaling water red earth people the place of the skulls people who fish with burning torches place of rabbits people who live at a certain place big bellies, one who cooks with a stone, he cooks by roasting (see Atsina) true people gentle or quiet people those who live along the river people of the long house, people of the extended lodge people of the blue green water to speak or act correctly people of the sound made by eating herring eggs off eel grass willow (speculation) bowmen those who have gone wearing something around the neck peaceful ones, people who live in a peaceful way red people of the tall pines mountain people healers those who speak the same language campers at the opening of the circle trinity river ruffian (French word) people of the tall pines dwellers at the end little dwellers at the end sleepy ones (Dakota word) real adders (Algonquian word) or we of the extended lodge people of the great sacred high waters great people of the sacred high waters

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-9

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Jicaque Jicarilla Kainai Kamloops Kan-hatki Kanienkahaka Kanza Karok Kaskaskia Kato Kawchottine Ketsei Kickapoo Kiowa Kispiox Kitamaat Kitkatla Kitselas Kitsumkalum Klallam Klamath Klickitat Kluskus Kotsoteka Kutcha-kutchin Kuupangaxwichem Kuyuidokado Kwalhioqua Kwayhquitlum Kwuda Lakota Latgawa Lenni Lenape Lheidli T’enneh Lillooet Loucheux Machapunga Mahican Makah Malahat Maliseet Maricopa Massachuset Matsqui Mdewankantonwan Menominee Metlakatla Miami Michigamea Mimbres (Apache)

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning ancient person (Nahuatl word) little basket weaver (Spanish word) many chiefs the meeting of the waters white earth people of the place of flint people of the south wind upstream he scrapes it off by means of a tool lake people of the great hares going in wet sand he stands about principal people, pulling out, coming out, people of the large tent flaps people of the hiding place people of the falling snow people of the salt, village by the sea people of the canyon people of the plateau strong people people of the lake beyond (Chinook word) place of small whitefish buffalo eaters those who live on the flats people who slept here cui-ui eaters lonely place in the woods (Chinook word) stinking fish slime people coming out friend or ally (same with Dakota and Nakota) those living in the uplands genuine men people of the confluence of the two rivers wild onion people with slanted or crossed eyes bad dust wolf (incorrect translation per the Mohican Nation, StockbridgeMunsee Band) cape people infested with caterpillars, place where one gets bait broken talkers people who live toward the water at the hills easy portage, easy travelling dwellers of the spirit lake wild rice men a passage connecting two bodies of salt water people on the peninsula, cry of the crane great water willow (Spanish word)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-10

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Miniconjou Minnetaree Minqua Missouri Moapa Moatokni Modoc Mohave Mohawk Mohegan Mohican Moneton Munsee Musqueam Nahane Nak’azdli Narragansett Nanticoke Nanoose Natsit-kutchin Navajo Nehalem Nicomen Nihtat Gwich’in Nipmuck Nokoni Nooksack Nootka Nusabi Oglala Ojibwa Okanagan Okelousa Okmulgee Omaha Oneida Onondaga Opata Ottawa Otto Oweekeno Pahodja Pakiutlema Pamunkey Pantch-pinunkansh Papagos Pascagoula Passamaquoddy Paugusset Pawnee Pechanga

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning planters by water they crossed the water stealthy great muddy, people with wooden canoes mosquito creek people southerners southerners three mountains, people of the water/river the possessors of the flint, coward or man eater (Abenaki words) wolf the people of the waters that are never still big water people at the place where the stones are gathered together place always to get iris plant root people of the west when arrows were flying people of the small point people of the tidewaters to push forward those who live off the flats cultivated field in an arroyo (Tewa word) where the people live level part people living together as a mixture freshwater fishing place those who turn back mountain men along the coast people of the clouds scatters their own to roast till puckered up head, top of head blackwater where water boils up upstream people or people going against the current a boulder standing up, people of the standing stone people on top of the hills hostile people (Pima word) to trade lechers those who carry on the back, people talking right dusty nones people of the gap rising upland men altogether red desert people, bean people bread people plenty of pollock where the narrows open out horn people, men of men, look like wolves place where the water drips

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-11

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Penateka Penelakut Pennacook Penobscot Pensacola Penticton People of the lakes Peoria Pequot Piegan Piikani Pilthlako Pima Pojoaque Potawatomi Powhatan Pshwanwapam Puyallup Qawishwallanavetum Quahadi Qualicum Quapaw Quatsino Qwulhhwaipum Raramuri Sac (Sauk) Salish Sans Arc Schaghticoke Schitsu’umsh Sekani Semiahmoo Seminole Seneca Shawnee Sicangu Sihasapa Sioux Siksika Sioux Sisitonwan Siska Skidegate Skokomish Skookumchuck Snuneymuxw Spallumcheen Spokane Spuzzum Sts’Ailes

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning honey eaters something buried down hill it forks on the white rocks or the descending ledge place, at the stone place hair people permanent place, always place tribes near the great lakes carrying a pack on his back fox people or destroyers scabby robes poor robe big swamp river people drinking place people of the place of the fire, keepers of the fire (fire nation, fire people) falls in a current of water stony ground shadow people that live among the rocks antelope where the dog salmon run downstream people downstream people prairie people foot runner people of the yellow earth or people of the outlet flatheads without bows at the river forks the ones that were found here dwellers on the rocks half moon separatist or breakaway, peninsula people place of stone, people of the standing rock, great hill people south or southerners burned thighs blackfeet blackfeet snake (French version of other tribe’s name) dwellers of the fish ground uncle, lots of cracks in the rocks red paint stone river people strong water people of many names flat along edge sun people or children of the sun (generally accepted) little flat the beating heart

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-12

Resources

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Sumas Tahltan Taino Takelma Tamarois Tanima Tangipahoa Tantawats Tarahumara Tatsanottine Tawakoni Teetl’it Gwich’in Tejas Tenawa Tennuth-ketchin Teton Tewa Thlingchadinne Titonwan Tl’azt’en Toltec Tonawanda Tonkawa Toquaht Tsa-mee-nis Tsattine Tsawout Tsawwassen Tsay Keh Dene Tsetsaut Tseycum Tsleil-Waututh Tubatulabal Tukudika Tuscarora Two Kettle Uchuckledaht Ulkatcho Unalachtgo Viniintaii Gwich’in Vuntut Gwitch’in Vvunta-ketchin Wahpekute Wahpetonwan Wailaki Wakokai Walapai Wallawalla Wampanoag Wappo Waptailmin

www.abc-clio.com

Meaning big flat opening something heavy in the water we the good people those living along the river out tail liver eaters corn gatherers southern men foot runner people of the copper water river bend among red hills people who live at the head of the waters friendly down stream middle people dwellers of the prairie moccasins dog-flank people dwellers of the plains people by the edge of the bay master builders (Nahuatl word) confluent stream they all stay together or most human of people people of the narrow place in front, people of the narrow channel bitten breast lives among the beavers houses raised up beach at the mouth, facing the sea people of the mountains people of the interior (Niska word) clay people people of the inlet pinenut eaters (Shoshone word) sheep eater hemp gatherers, the shirt wearing people two boilings there inside the bay good feeding place where animals get fat tidewater people people who live on or by the caribou trail dwellers among the lakes those who live among the lakes shooters amoung the leaves dwellers amoung the leaves north language (Wintun word) blue heron breeding place pine tree people little river eastern people brave people of the narrow river

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-13

Tribal Name Meanings (cont.) Tribal Name Wasco Wea Whel mux Wichita Winnebago Wiwohka Wyandot Yakama Yamparika Yaqan nukiy Yavapai Yoncalla Yuchi Yuhavitam Yuki Yurok

Meaning cup, those who have the cup the forest people, light-skinned ones, people who live near the river eddy people of spirit, people of breath big arbor (Choctaw word) filthy water people roaring water people of the peninsula, islanders runaway rooteaters or yapeaters the people where the rock is standing people of the sun, crooked mouth people those living at ayankeld situated yonder people of the pines stranger (Wintun word) downstream (Karok word)

Source: Phil Konstantin

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-14

Resources

Treaties by Tribe Tribe Aionai

Treaty Name Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Anadarko

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Apache

Treaty with the Apache, 1852 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Appalachicola

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1832 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1833

Arapaho

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, 1861 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1867 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851 Treaty with the Sioux—Brulé, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee—and Arapaho

Arikara

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, 1825 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Assinaboine

Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Bannock

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, 1825

Blackfeet

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865

Blood

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

Brothertown

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838

Caddo

Treaty with the Caddo, 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Cahokia

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-15

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Cayuga

Treaty Name Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Cayuse

Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Chasta

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

Cherokee

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1791 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1794 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1798 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1804 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1805 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1806 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1816 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1817 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1819 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, 1828 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, 1833 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1846 [Western Cherokee] Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1868 Agreement with the Cherokee, 1835 (Unratified) Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Cheyenne

Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, 1861 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1867 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Chickasaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1786 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1801 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1805 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1816 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-16

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Chickasaw (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1834 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1837 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1852 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1854 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1855 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866

Chippewa

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1819 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1826 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1836 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1838 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1839 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, 1847 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1859 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, and Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, 1864 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Forte Band, 1866 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, 1867 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, 1847 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, 1855 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., 1828

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-17

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Chippewa (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Choctaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1837 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1786 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1801 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1802 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1803 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1805 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1816 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1820 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1825 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1854 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1855 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, 1865

Clack-A-Mas

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855

Columbia

Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, 1883

Colville

Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, 1883

Comanche

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Creeks

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Creeks, 1790 Treaty with the Creeks, 1796 Treaty with the Creeks, 1802 Treaty with the Creeks, 1805 Treaty with the Creeks, 1814 Treaty with the Creeks, 1818 Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 Treaty with the Creeks, 1825 Treaty with the Creeks, 1826

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-18

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Creeks (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Creeks, 1827 Treaty with the Creeks, 1832 Treaty with the Creeks, 1833 Treaty with the Creeks, 1838 Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole, 1845 Treaty with the Creeks, 1854 Treaty with the Creeks, Etc., 1856 Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 Agreement with the Creeks, 1825 (Unratified)

Crow

Treaty with the Crow Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Crows, 1868 Agreement with the Crows, 1880 (Unratified) Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Dakota

Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

De Chutes

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Delaware

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, 1804 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Delawares, 1818 Treaty with the Delawares, 1829 Treaty with the Delawares, 1829 Treaty with the Delawares, 1854 Treaty with the Delawares, 1860 Treaty with the Delawares, 1861 Treaty with the Delawares, 1866 Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot, 1843 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Dwamish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Eel River

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-19

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Eel River (cont.)

Treaty Name Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Miami, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Five Nations

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Flathead

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Fox

Treaty with the Foxes, 1815

Gros Ventres

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Illinois

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Iowa

Treaty with the Iowa, 1815 Treaty with the Iowa, 1824. Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., 1836. Treaty with the Iowa, 1837 Treaty with the Iowa, 1838 Treaty with the Iowa, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1861 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

Kalapuya

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, 1854

Kansa

Treaty with the Kansa, 1815 Treaty with the Kansa, 1825 Treaty with the Kansa, 1825 Treaty with Kansa Tribe, 1846 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, 1859 Treaty with the Kansa Indians, 1862

Kaskaskia

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Ka-Ta-Ka

Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837

Keechy

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-20

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Kickapoo

Treaty Name Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1809 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1815 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1819 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion 1820 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1832 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1854 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1862 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Kik-Ial-Lus

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Kiowa

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, 1865 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, 1867 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867

Klamath

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864

Kootenay

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Lepan

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Long-Wha

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Lummi

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Makah

Treaty with the Makah, 1815 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Makah, 1855

Mandan

Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, 1825 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Me-Sek-Wi-Guilse

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Menominee

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Menominee, 1817 Treaty with the Menominee, 1831 Treaty with the Menominee, 1831 Treaty with the Menominee, 1832 Treaty with the Menominee, 1836 Treaty with the Menominee, 1848 Treaty with the Menominee, 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-21

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Menominee (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Menominee, 1856 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825

Miami

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Miami, 1818 Treaty with the Miami, 1826 Treaty with the Miami, 1828 Treaty with the Miami, 1834 Treaty with the Miami, 1838 Treaty with the Miami, 1840 Treaty with the Miami, 1854 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815

Middle Oregon Tribes

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Minitaree or Belantse-Etoa

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, 1825

Mitchigamia

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Modoc

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864

Mohawk

Treaty with the Mohawk, 1797 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Molala

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855 Treaty with the Molala, 1855

Muscogee

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Munsee

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1859 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1839 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1856 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805

Navajo

Treaty with the Navaho, 1849 Treaty with the Navaho, 1868

New York Indians

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838

Nez Percé

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-22

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Nex Percé (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1855 Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1863 Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1868

Nisqually

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Noo-Wha-Ha

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Omaha

Treaty with the Omaha, 1854 Treaty with the Omaha, 1865 Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830

Oneida

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Oneida, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Onondaga

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Osage

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Osage, 1808 Treaty with the Osage, 1815 Treaty with the Osage, 1818 Treaty with the Osage, 1822 Treaty with the Osage, 1825 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, 1825 Treaty with the Osage, 1839 Treaty with the Osage, 1865

Oto

Treaty with the Oto, 1817

Oto & Missouri

Treaty with the Confederated Oto and Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, 1833 Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830

Ottawa

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1820 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-23

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Ottawa (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Ottawa, 1831 Treaty with the Ottawa, 1833 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1855 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche De Bœuf, 1862 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Pawnee

Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, 1818 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, 1818 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Pawnee, 1833 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., 1848 Treaty with the Pawnee, 1857

Peoria

Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867

Piankeshaw

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, 1804 Treaty with the Piankashaw, 1805 Treaty with the Piankashaw, 1815 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea, 1832 Agreement with the Piankeshaw, 1818 (Unratified) Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Piegan

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-24

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Ponca

Treaty Name Treaty with the Ponca, 1817 Treaty with the Ponca, 1825 Treaty with the Ponca, 1858 Treaty with the Ponca, 1865

Potawatomi

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1829 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1809 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1816 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1815 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1818 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1826 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1827 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1828 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1832 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1834 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1836 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1837 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1846 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1861 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1866 Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-25

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Puyallup

Treaty Name Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Quapaw

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Quapaw,1818 Treaty with the Quapaw, 1824 Treaty with the Quapaw, 1833 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867

Qui-Nai-Elt

Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., 1855

Quil-Leh-Ute

Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., 1855

Ricara

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, 1825 Agreement at Fort Berthold, 1866 Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851

Rogue River

Treaty with the Rogue River, 1853 Treaty with the Rogue River, 1854 Agreement with the Rogue River, 1853 (Unratified)

Sac & Fox

Treaty with the Fox, 1815 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., 1836. Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1804 Treaty with the Sauk, 1815 Treaty with the Sauk, 1816 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1822 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1824 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1832 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1836 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1837 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1842 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, 1854 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1859 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1861 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1867 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789

Sa-Heh-Wamish

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Sah-Ku-Meh-Hu

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Scotons

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-26

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Seminole

Treaty Name Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole, 1845 Treaty with the Creeks, Etc., 1856 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, 1823 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 Treaty with the Seminole, 1833 Treaty with the Seminole, 1866

Seneca

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Seneca, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca, 1802 Treaty with the Seneca, 1831 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., 1831 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, 1842 Treaty with the Seneca, Tonawanda Band, 1857. Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Agreement with the Seneca, 1797 Agreement with the Seneca, 1823 (Unratified) Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

Seven Nations of Canada

Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, 1796

Shawnee

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, 1865 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., 1831 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1786 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1825 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1831 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., 1832 Treaty with the Shawnee, 1854 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-27

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Shawnee (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818

S’homamish

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Shoshoni

Treaty with the Eastern Shoshoni, 1863 Treaty with the Shoshoni—Northwestern Bands, 1863 Treaty with the Western Shoshoni, 1863 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868

Shoshoni-Goship

Treaty with the Shoshoni-Goship, 1863

Sioux

Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865 Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, 1825 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes, 1825 (Also Ogallala) Treaty with the Oto, Etc., 1836 — Yankton and Santee Bands Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830 — Medawah-Kanton, Wahpacoota, Wahpeton, Sissetong [Sisseton], Yanckton [Yancton] and Santie Bands Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, 1815 Treaty with the Sioux, 1816 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, 1825 — Teton, Yancton and Yanctonies Bands Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Sioux, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux, 1836 Treaty with the Sioux, 1837 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, 1851 Treaty with the Sioux—Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, 1851 (Also Med-ay-wa-kan-toan and Wah-pay-koo-tay) Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851 Treaty with the Sioux, 1858 — Mendawakanton and Wahpahoota Bands Treaty with the Sioux, 1858 — Sisseeton and Wahpaton Bands Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou Band, 1865 (Also Minneconjon) Treaty with the Sioux—Lower Brulé Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Hunkpapa Band, 1865 (Also Onkpahpah) Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, 1865 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, 1865 (Also Ogallala; O’Galla) Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, 1867 (Also Sissiton) Treaty with the Sioux—Brulé, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee—and Arapaho, Treaty with the Sioux, 1805

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-28

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Sioux (cont.)

Treaty Name Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, 1872 (Unratified) Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, 1873 — Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, 1882–83 (Unratified) — Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, and Lower Brulé Agencies Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1815 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1837 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 1858

Six Nations

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Skai-Wha-Mish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Skagit

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

S’klallam

Treaty with the S’Klallam, 1855

Sk-Tah-Le-Jum

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Snake

Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864 Treaty with the Snake, 1865

Snohomish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Snoqualmoo

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Squawskin

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Squi-Aitl

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Squin-Ah-Nush

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

St. Regis

Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, 1796

Stehchass

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Steilacoom

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Stockbridge

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1839 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, 1848 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, 1856

Suquamish

Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Swinamish

Treaty Name Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Tah-Wa-Carro

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837

Tamarois

Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Tenino

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Teton

Treaty with the Teton, 1815

Tonkawa

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

T’peek-Sin

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854

Tum-Waters

Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855

Tuscarora

Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784 Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794

Umatilla

Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Umpqua

Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, 1853 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, 1854

Upper Pend D’oreille

Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., 1855

Utah

Treaty with the Utah, 1849 Treaty with the Utah—Tabeguache Band, 1863

Ute

Treaty with the Ute, 1868

Waco

Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Walla-Walla

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855 Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Wasco

Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855

Wea

Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

R-29

R-30

Resources

Treaties by Tribe (cont.) Tribe Wea (cont.)

Treaty Name Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816 Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea, 1832 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wea, 1809 Treaty with the Wea, 1818 Treaty with the Wea, 1820 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795

Winnebago

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1816 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1829 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1832 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1837 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1846 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1855 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1859 Treaty with the Winnebago, 1865

Witchetaw

Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

Wyandot

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808 Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot, 1843 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1807 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., 1867 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1795 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1805 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1814 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1817 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1818 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1832 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1836 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1842 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1850 Treaty with the Wyandot, 1855

Yakima

Treaty with the Yakima, 1855

Source: Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1904). Digital copy courtesy of the Oklahoma State University Library Electronic Publishing Center

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Resources

R-31

Common Treaty Names Common Name Albany, Treaty of Canandaigua Treaty Chicago, Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Doaksville, Treaty of Fort Bridger, Treaty of Fort Harmar, Treaty of

Fort Laramie, Treaty of Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Treaty of

Greenville, Treaty of Holston, Treaty of Hopewell, Treaty of Medicine Creek, Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of New Echota, Treaty of Northwest Angle Treaty Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Qu’Appelle Treaty St. Louis, Treaty of

www.abc-clio.com

Full Treaty Name Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684 Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833 Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17, 1837 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3, 1868 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789 (Addendum) Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix–November 5, 1768 Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795 Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791 Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho-–October 28, 1867 Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835 Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825 Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography Abele, Charles A. 1969. “The Grand Indian Council and Treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825,” Ph.D. dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago. Anderson, George E., W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Anderson, George E., and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. “Treaty-making by the Federal Government in California 1851–1852.” In Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 1–36. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Anderson, Harry. 1956. “The Controversial Sioux Amendment to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851.” Nebraska History 37 (September): 201–220. Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Balman, Gail. 1970. “The Creek Treaty of 1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Summer): 184–196. Barce, Elmore. 1915. “Governor Harrison and the Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.” Indiana Magazine of History 11 (December): 352–367. Barnes, Lela. 1936. “Isaac McCoy and the Treaty of 1821.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 5 (May): 122–142. Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock, eds. 1996. In the Name of the Salish and Kootenai Nation: The 1885 Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Pablo, MT: Salish Kootenai College Press/University of Washington Press. Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: Irwin. Bischoff, William N., and Charles M. Gates, eds. 1943. “The Jesuits and the Coeur D’Alene Treaty

of 1858.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 34 (April): 169–181. Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 12: 179. Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA: Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and Fisheries. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991. “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3): 40–45. Boyd, Mark F. 1958. “Horatio S. Dexter and Events Leading to the Treaty of Moultrie Creek with the Seminole Indians.” Florida Anthropologist, 11 (September): 65–95. Brooks, Drex, and Patricia Nelson Limerick. 1995. Sweet Medicine: Sites of Indian Massacres, Battlefields, and Treaties. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Bugge, David, and J. Lee Corell. 1971. The Story of the Navajo Treaties. Window Rock, AZ: Research Section, Navajo Parks and Recreation Department, Navajo Tribe. Burns, Robert Ignatius, ed. 1952. “A Jesuit at the Hell Gate Treaty of 1855.” Mid-American 34 (April): 87–114. Report of Adrian Hoechen. Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1916. “The Virginia Frontier in History–1778.” Part 5, “The Treaty of Fort Pitt.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 24 (April): 168–179. Campisi, Jack. 1988. “From Stanwix to Canandaigua: National Policy, States’ Rights, and Indian Land.” In Iroquois Land Claims, eds. Christopher Vecsey and William A. Starna, 49–65. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

B-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-2

Selected Bibliography

Campisi, Jack. 1988. “The Oneida Treaty Period, 1783–1838.” In The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Perspectives, eds. Jack Campisi and Laurence M. Hauptman, 48–64. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Canada. 1905. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680–1890. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Repr., Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1992. Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Clark, Blue. 1994. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Clifton, James A. 1980. “Chicago, September 14, 1833: The Last Great Indian Treaty in the Old Northwest.” Chicago History 9 (Summer): 86–97. Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. With contributions by Joan La France and Vivian L. Bowden. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cohen, Felix S. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Cohen, Handbook of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1975. Article Six, Treaties between the United States and the Several Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint. Costo, Rupert, and Jeannette Henry. 1977. Indian Treaties: Two Centuries of Dishonor. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press. Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1973. “They Would Not Be Moved: The Chippewa Treaty of 1854.” Minnesota History 43 (Spring): 174–185. Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Decker, Craig A. 1977. “The Construction of Indian Treaties, Agreements, and Statutes.” American Indian Law Review 5(2): 299–311. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. New York: Delacorte Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves: Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.” Arizona Law Review 38(3): 963–980. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1977. “American Indian Treaty Making: Motives and Meanings.” American Indian Journal 3 (January): 2–10. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen: Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed. Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties with the American Indians: Including a Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club. Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC Studies 3 (Fall), 3–57. Dustin, Fred. 1920. “The Treaty of Saginaw, 1819.” Michigan History Magazine 4 (January): 243–278. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. “‘Nothing Has Been Effected’: The Vincennes Treaty of 1792.” Indiana Magazine of History 74 (March): 23–35. Ellison, William H. 1978. “Rejection of California Indian Treaties: A Study in Local Influence on National Policy.” In Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 50–70. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Fay, George Emory. 1971. Treaties Between the Potawatomi Tribe of Indians and the United States of America, 1789–1867. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado. Fay, George Emory. 1972. Treaties and Land Cessions Between the Bands of the Sioux and the United States of America, 1805–1906. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado. Fay, George Emory. 1977. Treaties Between the Tribes of the Great Plains and the United States of America: Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1825–1900 Etc. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of Northern Colorado.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Fay, George Emory. 1982. Treaties Between the Tribes of the Great Plains and the United States of America: Comanche and Kiowa, Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan, 1835–1891. Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado. Ferguson, Clyde R. 1979. “Confrontation at Coleraine: Creeks, Georgians and Federalist Indian Policy.” South Atlantic Quarterly 78 (Spring): 224–243. Ferguson, Robert B. 1985. “Treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation.” In The Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves, 214–230. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Fielder, Betty. 1955. “The Black Hawk Treaty.” Annals of Iowa 32 (January): 535–540. Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western History 49 (Spring): 2–17. Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty Rights and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): 178–211. Fisher, Robert L. 1933. “The Treaties of Portage des Sioux.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 19 (March): 495–508. Fixico, Donald L. 1984. “As Long as the Grass Grows . . . The Cultural Conflicts and Political Strategies of United States-Indian Treaties.” In Ethnicity and War, ed. Winston A. Van Horne, 128–149. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin System, American Ethnic Studies Committee/Urban Corridor Consortium. Foreman, Carolyn Thomas. 1955. “The Lost Cherokee Treaty.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 33 (Summer): 238–245. Foreman, Grant, ed. 1936. “The Journal of the Proceedings of Our First Treaty with the Wild Indians, 1835.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 14 (December): 394–418. Foreman, Grant. 1948. “The Texas Comanche Treaty of 1846.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 51 (April): 313–332. Franks, Kenny A. 1972–1973. “An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 50 (Winter): 458–473.

www.abc-clio.com

B-3

Franks, Kenny A. 1973. “The Impeachment of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 51 (Spring): 21–33. Gates, Charles M., ed. 1955. “The Indian Treaty of Point No Point.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 46 (April): 52–58. Gerwing, Anselm J. 1964. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of 1838.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 57 (Summer): 117–142. Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998. Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed. St. Paul: West. Gibson, Ronald V. 1977. Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy and Treaties Concluded by the Confederate States with Indian Tribes. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications. Gold, Susan Dudley. 1997. Indian Treaties. New York: Twenty-First Century Books. Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J. McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Hagan, William T. 1956. “The Sauk and Fox Treaty of 1804.” Missouri Historical Review 51 (October): 1–7. Haines, Francis. 1964. “The Nez Perce Tribe versus the United States.” Idaho Yesterdays 8 (Spring): 18–25. Halbert, Henry S. 1902. “The Story of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 6: 373–402. Harmon, George D. 1929. “The North Carolina Cherokees and the New Echota Treaty of 1835.” North Carolina Historical Review 6 (July): 237–253. Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hawkinson, Ella. 1934. “The Old Crossing Chippewa Treaty and Its Sequel.” Minnesota History 15 (September): 282–300. Hawley, Donna Lea. 1990. The Annotated 1990 Indian Act: Including Related Treaties, Statutes, and Regulations. Toronto: Carswell. Hayden, Ralston. 1920. The Senate and Treaties, 1789–1817: The Development of the Treaty-Making Functions of the United States Senate during Their Formative Period. New York: Macmillan.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-4

Selected Bibliography

Heilbron, Bertha L. 1941. “Frank B. Mayer and the Treaties of 1851.” Minnesota History 22 (June): 133–156. Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Henderson, Archibald. 1931. “The Treaty of Long Island of Holston, July, 1777.” North Carolina Historical Review 8 (January): 55–116. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997. “Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law Review 36(1): 46. Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000. “Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.” Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719. Henslick, Harry. 1970. “The Seminole Treaty of 1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Autumn): 280–294. Hill, Burton S. 1966. “The Great Indian Treaty Council of 1851.” Nebraska History 47 (March): 85–110. Holmes, Jack. 1969. “Spanish Treaties with West Florida Indians, 1784–1802.” Florida Historical Society, 48 (140–154). Hoover, Herbert T. 1989. “The Sioux Agreement of 1889 and Its Aftermath.” South Dakota History 19 (Spring): 56–94. Horsman, Reginald. 1961. “The British Indian Department and the Abortive Treaty of Lower Sandusky, 1793.” Ohio Historical Quarterly 70 (July): 189–213. Hosen, Fredrick E. 1985. Rifle, Blanket, and Kettle: Selected Indian Treaties and Laws. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Hough, Franklin B., ed. 1861. Proceedings of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Appointed by Law for the Extinguishment of Indian Titles in the State of New York. 2 vols. Albany, NY: Joel Munsell. Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1964. “The Creek Treaty of Washington, 1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 48 (December): 425–441. Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1968. “The Creek Treaty of November 15, 1827.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 52 (March): 1–15. Humphreys, A. Glen. 1971. “The Crow Indian Treaties of 1868: An Example of Power Struggle and Confusion in United States Indian Policy.” Annals of Wyoming 43 (Spring): 73–90. Ibbotson, Joseph D. 1938. “Samuel Kirkland, the Treaty of 1792, and the Indian Barrier State.” New York History 19 (October): 374–391.

www.abc-clio.com

Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook. 2nd ed. Scarborough, ON: Carswell. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and Beyond. Saskatoon: Purich. Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne, 1–6. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Jennings, Francis, ed. 1985. The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1969. “Medicine Lodge Revisited.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 35 (Summer): 130–142. Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. “A Most Satisfactory Council.” American Heritage 16 (October): 26–31, 70–76. Kane, Lucile M. 1951. “The Sioux Treaties and the Traders.” Minnesota History 32 (June): 65–80. Keller, Robert H. 1971. “On Teaching Indian History: Legal Jurisdiction in Chippewa Treaties.” Ethnohistory 19 (Summer): 209–218. Keller, Robert H. 1978. “An Economic History of Indian Treaties in the Great Lakes Region.” American Indian Journal 4 (February): 2–20. Keller, Robert H. 1989. “America’s Native Sweet: Chippewa Treaties and the Right to Harvest Maple Sugar.” American Indian Quarterly 13 (Spring): 117–135. Kellogg, Louise Phelps. 1931. “The Menominee Treaty at the Cedars, 1836.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 26: 127–135. Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian Treaty Myth.” Southern California Quarterly 55 (Fall): 225–238. Kessell, John L. 1981. “General Sherman and the Navajo Treaty of 1868: A Basic and Expedient Misunderstanding.” Western Historical Quarterly 12 (July): 251–272.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Kickingbird, Kirke, Lynn Kickingbird, Alexander Tallchief Skibine, and Charles Chibitty. 1980. Indian Treaties. Washington, DC: Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Kickingbird, Lynn, and Curtis Berkey. 1975. “American Indian Treaties—Their Importance Today.” American Indian Journal 1 (October): 3–7. Kinnaird, Lucia Burk. 1932. “The Rock Landing Conference of 1789.” North Carolina Historical Review 9 (October): 349–365. Kvasnicka, Robert M. 1988. “United States Indian Treaties and Agreements.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian–White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 195–201. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Lambert, Paul F. 1973. “The Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the West 12 (July): 471–489. Lanchart, David. 1985. “Regaining Dinetah: The Navajo and the Indian Peace Commission at Fort Sumner.” In Working in the Range: Essays on the History of Western Land Management and the Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 25–38. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.” Environmental Law 10: 413–456. Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making in Western Washington.” American Indian Journal 3 (April): 2–11. Larson, Gustive O. 1974. “Uintah Dream: The Ute Treaty—Spanish Fork, 1865.” Brigham Young University Studies 14 (Spring): 361–381. Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31 (Fall): 859–886. Lehman, J. David. 1990. “The End of the Iroquois Mystique: The Oneida Land Cession Treaties of the 1790s.” William and Mary Quarterly, 47(4): 523–547. Leonard, Stephen J. 1990. “John Nicolay in Colorado: A Summer Sojourn and the 1863 Ute Treaty.” Essays and Monographs in Colorado History 11, 25–54. Lindquist, G. E. E. 1948–1949. “Indian Treaty Making.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 26 (Winter): 416–448. Litton, Gaston L., ed. 1939. “The Negotiations Leading to the Chickasaw-Choctaw Agreement, January 17, 1837.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 17 (December): 417–427.

www.abc-clio.com

B-5

Madill, Dennis. 1981. British Columbia Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Mahan, Bruce E. 1925. “The Great Council of 1825.” Palimpsest 6 (September): 305–318. Mahan, Bruce E. 1929. “Making the Treaty of 1842.” Palimpsest 10 (May): 174–180. Mahon, John K. 1962. “The Treaty of Moultrie Creek, 1823.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40 (April): 350–372. Mahon, John K. 1962. “Two Seminole Treaties: Payne’s Landing, 1882, and Ft. Gibson, 1833.” Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (July): 1–21. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their Breach. Saskatoon: Purich. Manley, Henry S. 1838. “Buying Buffalo from the Indians.” New York History 28 (July 1947): 313–329, Buffalo Creek Treaty. Manley, Henry S. 1932. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1784. Rome, NY: Rome Sentinel. Martin, John Henry. 1975. List of Documents Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified Indian Treaties, 1801–1869. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint. McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McCullar, Marion Ray. 1973. “The ChoctawChickasaw Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the West 12 (July): 462–470. McKenney, Thomas L. 1827. Sketches of a Tour to the Lakes, of the Character and Customs of the Chippeway Indians, and of Incidents Connected with the Treaty of Fond du Lac. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr. McNeil, Kinneth. 1964–65. “Confederate Treaties with the Tribes of Indian Territory.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 42 (Winter): 408–420. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971. Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Charte Canadienne des droits et Libertés, 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Errol Mendes, 1171–1257. Markham, ON: LexisNexis Butterworths. Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

B-6

Selected Bibliography

Parker, Arthur C. 1924. “The Pickering Treaty.” Rochester Historical Society Publication Fund Series 3: 79–91. Partoll, Albert J., ed. 1937. “The Blackfoot Indian Peace Council.” Frontier and Midland: A Magazine of the West 17 (Spring): 199–207. Partoll, Albert J. 1938. “The Flathead Indian Treaty Council of 1855.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 29 (July): 283–314. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. Phillips, Charles, and Alan Axelrod. 2000. Encyclopedia of Historical Treaties and Alliances. New York: Facts on File. Phillips, Edward Hake. 1966. “Timothy Pickering at His Best: Indian Commissioner, 1790–1794.” Essex Institute Historical Collections 102 (July): 185–192. Pittman, Philip M., and George M. Covington. 1992. Don’t Blame the Treaties: Native American Rights and the Michigan Indian Treaties. West Bloomfield, MI: Altwerger and Mandel. Powless, Irving, and G. Peter Jemison. 2000. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and Cases. Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Repr., Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1999. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1975. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Quaife, Milo M., ed. 1918. “The Chicago Treaty of 1833.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 1 (March): 287–303. Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: The Historical Development of a Legal Concept,” American Journal of Legal History 34 (October): 331–364. Rakove, Jack N. 1984. “Solving a Constitutional Puzzle: The Treatymaking Clause as a Case

www.abc-clio.com

Study.” Perspectives in American History, s.n., 1: 233–281. Roberts, Gary L. 1975. “The Chief of State and the Chief.” American Heritage 26 (October): 28–33, 86–89. Creek Treaty of New York, 1790. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995. Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Rutland, Robert A. 1949–1950. “Political Background of the Cherokee Treaty of New Echota.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 27 (Winter): 389–406. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 79(1). Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Schwartzman, Grace M., and Susan K. Barnard. 1991. “A Trail of Broken Promises: Georgians and the Muscogee/Creek Treaties, 1796–1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 75 (Winter): 697–718. Silliman, Sue I. 1922. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of 1821.” Michigan History Magazine 6(1): 194–197. Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196. Smith, Dwight L. 1954. “Wayne and the Treaty of Greene Ville.” Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 63 (January): 1–7. Smith, Dwight L. 1978. “The Land Cession Theory: A Valid Instrument of Transfer of Indian Title.” In This Land Is Ours: The Acquisition of the Public Domain, 87–102. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Stanley, Henry M. 1967. “A British Journalist Reports the Medicine Lodge Peace Council of 1867.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 33 (Autumn): 249–320. Stern, Theodore. 1956. “The Klamath Indians and the Treaty of 1864.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 57 (September): 229–273.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Selected Bibliography

Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657. Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.” In History of Indian White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 202–210. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Taylor, Alfred A. 1924. “Medicine Lodge Peace Council.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 2 (June): 98–117. Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): 793–812. Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. 1986. Indians, Superintendents, and Councils: Northwestern Indian Policy, 1850–1855. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd. 1938. Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian War: An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 That Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press/Septentrion. Vaughan, Alden T. 1979. Early American Indian Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607– 1789. Washington, DC: University Publications of America. Vipperman, Carl J. 1989. “The Bungled Treaty of New Echota: The Failure of Cherokee Removal, 1836–38.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73 (Fall): 540–558. Watts, Charles W. 1959. “Colbert’s Reserve and the Chickasaw Treaty of 1818.” Alabama Review 12 (October): 272–280. Watts, Tim J. 1991. American Indian Treaty Rights: A Bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies.

www.abc-clio.com

B-7

Wells, Samuel J. 1983–1984. “Rum, Skins, and Powder: A Choctaw Interpreter and the Treaty of Mount Dexter.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 61 (Winter): 422–428. Wells, Samuel J. 1986. “International Causes of the Treaty of Mount Dexter, 1805.” Journal of Mississippi History 48 (August): 177–185. Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights: Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20(1): 87–129. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review (May–June): 375– 414. Wilkinson, Charles F. 2000. Messages from Frank’s Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?” California Law Review 63 (May): 601–661. Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle: Outdoor Empire. Wright, J. Leitch, Jr. 1967. “Creek-American Treaty of 1790: Alexander McGillivray and the Diplomacy of the Old Southwest.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 51 (December): 379–400. Wrone, David R. 1986–1987. “Indian Treaties and the Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 70 (Winter): 83–106. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of Indian Rights to Their Homelands.” In Working the Range: Essays on the History of Western Land Management and the Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Index Note: Page locators in boldface type indicate the location of a main encyclopedia entry. A-ka-ke (the Crow), 328 A-Kei-Quodle (Lone Wolf), 677 A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi (Lone Chief), 349, 356 Aampahaa (Speaker), 294 Aanti (Short Stay), 897 ABCFM. See American Board for Commissioners of Foreign Missions Abenaki, 75, 211, 235, 278, 638 Abert, John J., 333 Aboriginal homelands, 95. See also Reservations Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry (ALOHA), 207 Aboriginal peoples, in Canada, 209, 217–218 Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, and the Constitution, 663 Aboriginal rights, 95, 143, 396, 401, 406–407, 637–638, 728–729, 920 Aboriginal title, 215, 375, 380, 382, 386, 389, 395, 398, 406–407, 729–730, 919–920 Abourezk, James, 741, 742 Abrogation, 44–46 Absenteeism, and education, 186–187 Acculturation, 28 ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union Act for the Government and Protection of the Indians, 660 Act of Capitulation, 637, 638 Act of May 25, 1824, 253 Act 304, 206 Acts, 49. See also individual acts Adair, George W., 333 Adair, John, 850 Adair, William P., 737–738 Adams, David, 301 Adams, Hank, 152, 700, 707, 738–739, 751 Adams, John, 69, 757 Adams, John Quincy, 79, 85, 413, 655, 865, 935

Adams, Moses N., 376 Adams, Vivian, 148 Adams-Onís Treaty, 656 Addenda treaties, 102–103. See also Treaties Addoetta (Big Tree), 851 Administration, tribal of federation programs, 116–117 Adoetti (Big Tree), 851 Adoption. See Child welfare “Affirmation of the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere,” 713 AFN. See Alaska Federation of Natives Africa, 49 African Americans, 29–30, 35, 88, 170, 181 AFSC. See American Friends Service Committee Age of exploration, 49 Agencies, 27. See also individual agencies Agrarian-based economy, 76 Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, 1866, 363–364 Agreement-in-principle (AIP), 949 Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 Agreement with the Cherokee, March 14, 1834, 320 Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Creek, June 29, 1825, 303 Agreement with the Crows, May 14, 1880, 385 Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes, September 8, 1853, 338 Agreement with the Seneca, September 15, 1797, 289

Agreement with the Seneca, September 3, 1823, 302 Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, October 17, 1822, to January 3, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Agreements, 49. See also individual agreements; Treaties Agriculture, 17, 25, 31, 33, 134 in Hawaii, 202, 203, 206 Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, 320 Ah-quash-she, 323 Ahweyneyonh (Drooping Flower, Blue Flower), 884 AIAD. See American Indians Against Desecration AIM. See American Indian Movement Aionai (I-on-i) Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 AIP. See Agreement-in-principle Air quality, 140 AIRFA. See American Indian Religious Freedom Act Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 206 Akaitcho, 400 Akaka, Daniel, 207 Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names), 785 Akwesasne, 638, 720, 721 Al-le-ga-wa-ho, 414 Alabama, 21, 85–86 Alaska, 44, 170, 195–199, 685–686 education in, 195 fishing rights in, 195–196 jurisdiction in, 172 and land compensation, 195, 196–198 mineral development in, 198 native land claims in, 196–199 natural resources in, 195–196

I-1 www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

I-2

Index

Alaska (cont.) oil in, 195, 196, 197 poverty in, 199 regional and village corporations in, 198–199 and relocation, 195 reservations in, 195–196, 198 and Russia, 195 self-determination in, 198 sovereignty in, 199 statehood in, 195. See also Alaska Statehood Act termination in, 196, 198 and trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 Alaska Coalition, 197 Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 199 Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), 195, 196, 197–198, 698–699 Alaska Highway, 240 Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, 400 Alaska Native Allotment Act, 195 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 139, 174, 195, 198–199, 698–699 Alaska Native Reorganization Act, 681 Alaska Natives, 195–199, 198, 685–686 and jurisdiction, 174 Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 195–196 Alaska Purchase Treaty, 195 Alaska Railroad, 195 Alaska Statehood Act, 196, 197 Alatala Hooma, 291 Albany Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1755, 640–641 Treaty of Albany with Iroquois Confederacy and British Crown, September 24, 1664, 211 Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 Albertson, Isaac, 319 Alcatraz, occupation of, 689–691, 712. See also Oakes, Richard Alcohol, 35, 273 Aleiya (Lawyer), 345, 374 Aleut, 195, 196 Alexander, John, 885 Alexander (son of Massasoit), 859–860

www.abc-clio.com

Alexander VI, 49, 954 Alexis, Chief, 148 Alford, Henry, 851 Algonkian (Algonquian), 75, 163, 235, 243, 412 Alibamon, 52, 53 Ali’i (nobility), 228 Allegheny Reservoir, 44 Allen, Elisha P., 231 table 4 Allen, Frank J., 314, 315 Alliances, 40, 52 Allis, Samuel, 349 Allotments, 5–6, 7–8, 24–25, 32, 34, 98, 109–110, 111, 133, 138, 167, 920–921. See also General Allotment Act; Indian Reorganization Act; Land ownership ALOHA. See Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry Alvord, H. J., 355 Ambrister, Robert, 808 Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), 183, 655 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 152 American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), 152, 717 American Fur Trade Company, 422 American Indian Defense Association, 189 American Indian Mission Association, 418 American Indian Movement (AIM), 700, 701, 712–713, 739–741 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 703–706 See also Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou; Bellecourt, Clyde; Banks, Dennis; Means, Russell American Indian Policy Review Commission, 36, 115, 741–742 American Indian Policy Review Commission Act, 173–174 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 118, 140, 174–175, 947 American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 709–710

ABC-CLIO

American Indian Treaty Rights Movement, 140 American Indian Tribal Governments, 190 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, 117 American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD), 176 American Indian Policy Review Commission, 710 American Revolution. See Revolutionary War (U.S.) Americanization, 179 and education, 185 Amherst, Jeffrey, 902 Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Treaty of, 55 Amoah, 430 Ana-da-ca. See Anadarko Anadarko (Ana-da-ca), 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Ancient remains, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites ANCSA. See Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Anderson, William, 292, 309 Andrews, T. P., 333 Ani’-Yun’ wiya, 429 Anishinaabe (Anishinabe), 155, 305 Anishnabeg (Anishnaabeg), 216, 335, 435, 645, 727 Anne, Queen, 822 Annette Island Reserve, 198 Annexation, of Hawaii, 200, 202–203, 205–207 Annuities, 24, 25, 41, 270, 921–922. See also Land compensation; Trade and Intercourse Act Anthony, Scott, 772, 773 Anthony, Susan B., 772 Antiquities, 124–126, 725. See also Sacred sites Antiquities Act, 947 Antoine v. Washington, 45 Apache, 25, 52, 53, 57, 61, 100, 104, 110, 267–269, 271, 272, 273, 411, 412, 677–678 and education, 182, 188–189 and Fort Sumner, 425–426 and jurisdiction, 168 and reconstruction treaty, 106, 107

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 339, 500–502 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Apalachicola (Appalachicola) and confederate treaty, 103 Treaty with the Appalachicola, October 11, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Apology Resolution Appropriations acts, 27 Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou, 742–744. See also American Indian Movement Aquash, Nogeeshik, 743 Ar-ber-too-quet, 329 Arapaho, 24, 30, 101, 103, 106, 251, 252, 254, 256, 270, 272, 733 and jurisdiction, 175 and reconstruction treaty, 107 and reorganization, 171 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Arapaho Reservation, 32 Arbuckle, Matthew, 320, 330, 419 Arbuthnot, Alexander, 808

www.abc-clio.com

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 125 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 400 Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA), 197 Areas indigena, 95. See also Reservations Arikara, 24, 101, 106, 253, 254 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July 18, 1825, 304 Arizona, 62, 88 Arizona Enabling Act, 703 Arkansas, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Arkansas River, 21 Arkansas Territory, 21 Armstrong, Benjamin, 760 Armstrong, John, 424 Armstrong, Joseph, 309 Armstrong, Silas, 343 Armstrong, William, 330, 332, 333 Armstrong Academy, 418 Army Corps of Engineers, 154 Arn, W. F. M., 799 Aronne (Cherokee Boy), 298 Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act, 718 Arootsook Micmac, 176 Arthur, Duncan, 297 Articles of Agreement of 1826, 231 table 4, 232 Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760, 637–638 Articles of Confederation, 14, 53, 55, 260, 283–284, 285 Article IX, 27 and jurisdiction, 163 treaties under, 70–73 Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), 349, 356 Asia, 203 ASNA. See Arctic Slope Native Association Aspinall, Wayne, 197 Assapausa, 862 Assimilation, 13, 31–33, 35–36, 61, 96, 134, 138, 168, 170, 171, 922–924 coercive, 110, 111 and education, 179–180, 186, 187, 189, 190 See also General Allotment Act Assimilative Crimes Act, 173 Assiniboine (Assinaboine), 24, 101, 106, 236, 254, 383, 678–679

ABC-CLIO

I-3

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Nakota Associated funerary objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Association of Aroostook Indians, 718 Atcheson, Nathaniel, 56 Athabascan (Athapascan), 195, 196, 236 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 See also Dene Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis Clark), Chief, 289 Atkins, J. D. C., 183 Atkinson, Henry, 253, 303, 304, 306, 439, 754 Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley, 113 Atoka Agreement, 8, 674–675, 676, 677 Attacked Toward Home (Axkyahpsay-pi), 785 Atwater, Caleb, 309 Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish), 328 Augur, Christopher Colon, 366, 367, 369, 370, 373–374 Auicara (Pah-sal-sa), 304 Aupaumut, Hendrick, 75, 744–745 Australia, 203 Aweecony, 286 Awl Breaker (Taa’-wonyas), 814 Awuohee, 430 the Axe (La-ma-noan), 294 Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked Toward Home), 785 Ayowai, 252 Azores, 49 Babbitt, Bruce, 725, 789 Bad Heart Bull, Wesley, 704, 747 Badoni v. Higginson, 174 Bagot, Sir Charles, 745 Bagot Commission (Canada), 745–746

1-800-368-6868

I-4

Index

Bailey, David, 851 Baker Lake, 715–716 Balcombe, A. D., 356 Bald eagle, 45 Baldwin, Henry, 656–657 Balme, Augustin de la, 849 Banai, Edward Benton, 750, 751. See also American Indian Movement Banks, Dennis, 700, 704–706, 712, 739, 743, 746–747, 750, 751, 857–858. See also American Indian Movement Banning, Evelyn I., 829 Bannock, 106, 227–228 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374, 556–559 Bannock Reservation, 372, 374 BAR. See Branch of Acknowledgment and Research Barbeyric, Jean, 49 Barbon, 748 Barboncito (Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod), 370, 371, 412, 748–749 Barbour, George, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Barbour, John, 308 Bark, 297 Barnard, Lewis, 338 Barnett, John, 323 Barnhart, Andrew, 151–152 Barron, Joseph, 444 Bart, Augustin. See Shinguakouce Bartlett, Mary, 791 Bascom, George, 777 Bassett, Joel B., 365 Batchewana, 436 Bates, Frederick, 438–439, 846 Battelle des Illinois, 421 Battles. See under individual battles Bawating, 435 Bawldridge, John, 297 Bay Mills Indian Community, 436 Bay Mills Indian Reservation, 710 Bayonet Constitution, 203–204, 232 Beale, Edward F., 661 Bear-skin, 312 Bearskin, Leoford, 749–750 Beaver Wars, 278 Becancour, 75 Belantse-Etoa Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304

www.abc-clio.com

Bell, John A., 333 Bellecourt, Clyde, 739, 746, 750–752. See also American Indian Movement Bellecourt, Vernon, 752 Belloni, Robert, 153, 696, 697, 900 Benson, Thomas Hart, 253 Bent, Charles, 770 Bent, William, 269, 358, 769–770 Benton, Thomas Hart, 17–18 Bernard, Joshua, 720 Bernard case, 720–721 Bernstein, Betty, 840 Beshkike (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Between the Logs (Taruntne), 298 Beuge, John, 297 BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs BIC. See Board of Indian Commissioners Bidwell, John, 660 Big Bow (Zebaedal), 897 Big Foot, Chief, 705 Big-Mouth, 351, 901 Big River (Chekommia), 298 Big Snake, 904 Big Tree, Treaty of, 76 Big Tree (Addoetta, Adoetti), 851, 892–893, 897 Bighorse, Gus, 662 Bilateral agreements, 39 Bill C-31, 668 Bird Bow, 838 Black, Edward, 365 Black, Hugo, 44, 63, 686, 692 Black Buffalo Woman, 784 Black Cloud (Manpinsaba), 294 Black Coat, 315 Black Eagle. See Kicking Bird Black Elk, Wallace, 743 Black Fox, 292 Black Hawk (Makataimeshekiakiak), 255, 752–754, 776, 798, 807, 810, 811 and Clark, William, 776 and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 810, 811 Black Hawk War, 84, 90, 317, 413 Black Hills, 39, 40, 256–257 gold in, 139–140, 719 Black Jim, 768 Black Kettle, 352, 367, 733, 754–755 and Chivington, 772, 773 Black Mesa, 140 Black River Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355

ABC-CLIO

Black Shawl, 784 Black War Club (Champisaba), 294 Blackbird, Andrew, 428 Blackfeet, 101, 230 table 2, 236, 251, 252 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Blackfeet, October 17, 1855, 347–348 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–359, 358–360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Blackhawk, John, 161 Blackmun, Harry, 708, 719, 723 Blackstone, John, 945 Blanchard’s Fork Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 BLM. See Bureau of Land Management Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy, 755–756 Blood, 101, 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Blood Law, 322 Blount, James H., 204 Blount, William, 287, 756–758. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs Blount Report, 205 Blue Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884 Blue Jacket, 76, 849, 850, 902 Blunt, James G., 419 Blunt, John, 313 Board of Indian Commissioners (BIC), 30 Boarding schools, 185–186. See also Schools Bodin, Jean, 49 Bogy, Lewis V., 364, 365 Boilvin, Nicholas, 776 Bois Fort (Bois Forte), 157 Treaty of, 228

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Boldt, George, 153–154, 696, 697, 706, 707, 739 Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 153–154, 155, 156, 158, 428, 696, 706–707 Boldt II, 154 Bonja, George, 333 Bonneville Dam, 154–155 Bonneville Power Administration, 155 Bonnin, Gertrude, 763 Boone, Albert G., 351 Bosque Redondo Reservation, 425 Boston Charley, 768 Boston University, 189 Boudinot, Elias (Buck Oowatie; Gallegina Watie), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 429–430, 667, 758, 909 Boudinot, Elias (statesman, poet), 758 Bouquet, Henry, 424 Bourgeois, Marie Therese, 774 Bowdoin, Sarah, 791 Bowles, William Augustus, 856 Boyd, Robert, 415 Boyer, LaNada, 691 Bozeman Trail, 254, 256 Braddock, Edward, 782 Bradford, William, 854 Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR), 928 Branching Horn (Haibohaa), 294 Brando, Marlon, 152, 739 Brandt, Joseph, 289 Brant, Joseph, 55, 72–73, 76, 641, 759–760, 885, 886 Brant, Mary, 836 the Brave (Tearekatacaush), 298 Bread, Daniel, 329 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, et al., 931 Breynat, Bishop, 392 Bright Eyes (Susette LaFlesche Tibbles), 905–906 British Columbia, 215, 216 British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, April 8, 1765, 279–280 British North America Act, 236, 663, 664. See also Constitution Act (Canada) British Rolls of Parliament, 49 Broadhead, Daniel, 744 Bronson, Isaac, 290

www.abc-clio.com

Brookings Institute, 33, 923 Brooks, Jehiel, 320 Brooks, William, 853 Broom, 291 Brothertown, 305, 315 Brown, George, 201 Brown, James, 327 Brown, Jerry, 747 Brown, John, 333 Brown, John D., 312 Brown, John F., 362 Brown, Orlando, 842 Brown, Ray A., 679–680 Browning, Orville H., 369 Brule, 106 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Bruneau River Treaty, 228 Bryan, John A., 323 Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 62 Buchanan, James, 201, 772 Buck, John Kill, 424 Buck Act, 703 Buckongahclas, 442 Buffalo, Chief (Kechewaishke, Beshkike, Le Boeuf), 433, 760–761 Buffalo Bill, 802, 803, 899 Buffalo Creek, Treaty of, 23 Buffalo Head (Ta-ton-ca-pa), 303 Buffalo herds, 24, 107, 139, 270 Buffalo (Kechewaishke), 433 Bull Bear, 367, 818 Bulls of Donation, 924 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 29, 30, 34, 35, 43, 54, 62, 111, 115, 116, 761–762 and Alaska, 196 and American Indian SelfDetermination and Education Act, 709 corruption in, 167 and domestic dependent nation, 926 and education, 182, 183, 184–187, 189–190 and Federal Acknowledgment Process, 928 and federally recognized tribes, 175, 176–177, 929 and fishing rights, 154 and Indian Reorganization Act, 680–681 and jurisdiction, 173 and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 694 and Meriam Report, 679 and Morton v. Mancari, 708

ABC-CLIO

I-5

and nonrecognized tribes, 941, 942 public apology, 2000, 731, 733 and Public Law 280, 684 and reservations, 95–96 and reserved rights, 141, 150 and state-recognized tribes, 950 takeover of, 712 and Trail of Broken Treaties, 700 and trust land, 956 and trust responsibility, 958 and water rights, 145 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 704, 705 See also Blount, William; Burke, Charles H.; Calhoun, John C.; Collier, John; McKenney, Thomas L.; Office of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 196, 197, 958 Bureau of Reclamation, 144–145, 958 Burgess, Mercy, 787 Burial objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Burke, Charles H., 763–764. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs Burke, Edmund, 333 Burke Act, 33, 932 Burnett, William, 437 Burr, Aaron, 846 Bursum, Holm, 764 Bursum Bill, 780 Bush, George W., 734 Business community, in Hawaii, 203–204 Butler, Dino, 743 Butler, Rev. Elizur, 57, 88, 655 Butler, P. M., 332 Butler, Richard, 72, 285, 286 Butler, Thomas, 289 Butterworth case, 735 Buy Indian Act, 33 Byrd, William, 277 Ca-La Na-Po Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 CAA. See Community Action Agency Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. California, 121, 124, 723 Cabezón, Pisago, 777 Caddo, 104, 268 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835, 320 Cadillac, Antoine, 878

1-800-368-6868

I-6

Index

Caghnawaga, Chief, 289 Cahokia Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Cahwai Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Calapooia, 342 Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia (Canada), 215, 398, 406, 701–702, 715, 728, 920, 940 Caldwell, Billy, 319, 413, 764–765, 807 Caldwell, Joe, 430 Calhoun, Henry, 22 Calhoun, James S., 268, 272, 334 Calhoun, John C., 262–263, 299, 302, 439 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 761 and Parker, Ely S., 870 California, 24, 136, 199–200, 201 gold discovery in, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, 254, 659, 660 jurisdiction in, 172 treaties in, 100, 228, 231 table 3 California v. Cabazon, 175 Calumet ceremony, 39 Camp Stevens treaty history of, 409–410 Walla Walla Council, 409 See also Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854 Campbell, 297 Campbell, A. J., 350 Campbell, Ben Nighthorse, 733 Campbell, Duncan G., 302 Campbell, John, 753 Campbell, Robert, 422 Canada, 41, 51, 55, 56, 80, 97, 209–220 aboriginal peoples in, 209, 217–218 and British treaties, 235, 237–238 and Canadian Independence, 212–214 and colonial America, 209 contemporary agreements in, 236, 240–241 and education, 179 and Europe, 209 fishing rights in, 218 and France, 209 and French treaties, 235, 236–237

www.abc-clio.com

and Great Britain, 209, 210, 211, 214 and Hudson’s Bay Company treaties, 235, 238–239 land claims agreements in, 215–217 modern legal status of treaties in, 218, 220 and modern treaties, 215–217 and numbered treaties, 236, 239–240 and peace and friendship treaties, 210–212 Pre-Confederation Treaties, 641–642 and Revolutionary War (U.S.), 212–214 sovereignty in, 177 treaties from 1867-1930, 214–215 treaty litigation in, 218–220 treaty making in, 210–217 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289 and Upper Canada treaties of land surrender, 235–236, 239 Canada Department of Indian Affairs, 404, 940 Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, 216, 218 Specific Claims Branch, 949 Canada Department of Justice, 216 Canada Indian Specific Claims Commission, 216 Canada Pension Plan, 217 Canadian Bill of Rights, 668, 687–688 Canadian Centre for the Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, 949 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 688 Canadian Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, 400 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty document, 559–564 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty document, 564–566 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 239, 377 treaty document, 566–572

ABC-CLIO

Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 239, 378–380 treaty document, 573–581 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 239, 380–381 treaty document, 581–595 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 240, 381–382 treaty document, 595–598 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 240, 382–385 treaty document, 598–603 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 240, 385–387 treaty document, 603–607 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 240, 388–389 treaty document, 607–612 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 240, 390–391 treaty document, 612–621 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27 to August 30, 1921, 240, 391–393 treaty document, 622–627 Canadian Parliament, 215 Canagaraduncka, Brant, 759 Canandaigua, Treaty of, 19, 75, 287, 679. See also Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794 Canassatego, 765–766, 823 Canby, Edward Richard Sprigg, 412, 661, 768, 769, 770 Canons of treaty construction, 11, 22, 41–43, 62–63, 135, 149 Cansa. See Kansa Canyon de Chelly treaty history of, 410–412 See also Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868 Cape Sable bands, 237 Cape Verde Islands, 49 Capitulation of Montreal, 237, 637–638 Capote, 272 Captain Dutch, 333 Captain Jack (Kintpuash), 767–768 Captain Jack’s Stronghold, 227

1-800-368-6868

Index Captain Pollard, 885 Caravel, 49 Carey Mission, Treaty of, 437 Caribou Creek, Treaty of, 196 Carimine, 305 Carleton, James H., 370, 412, 425, 661, 662, 748, 770, 853, 854 Carlisle Indian School, 59, 179, 185, 186, 188, 189. See also Pratt, Richard Henry; Schools Carpenter v. Shaw, 42, 62 Carroll, William, 321 Carson, Christopher Houston “Kit,” 104, 267, 269, 270, 272, 358, 368, 412, 425, 661, 662, 748, 769–770, 853 and Ouray, 868 Carson, Lindsey, 769 Carson, Rebecca Robinson, 769 Carter, Colbert, 362 Carter, Henry R., 327 Carter, Jimmy, 716 Carter administration, 247, 818 Cartier, Jacques, 938 Cartwright, George, 211 Cass, Lewis, 85, 87, 90, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 307, 309, 412–413, 427, 658, 771–772, 776, 867 and Michilimackinac, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 430 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 and Schoolcraft, Henry, 894 Casserly, Eugene, 59 Castake Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs, 35 Catawba, 259 Catholic Church, 49, 209 Cattaraugus Reservation, 76 Cattle grazing, 31–32, 33 Caughnawaga, 75 Caveat case. See Paulette case Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, 330 Cayetano, Ben, 732 Cayuga, 248, 278. See also Six Nations Cayuse, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 415 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Cayuse War, 410 Celilo Falls, 151

www.abc-clio.com

Celilo Fish Committee (CFC), 151 CENA. See Coalition of Eastern Native Americans Central America, 51 Cera, Mitchell P. (Wash-kom-moni), 349 CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Ceremonies, 6, 13, 14, 19, 39, 668 and subsistence resources, 147–148 Cerre, Mitchell P. (Wash-com-moni), 349, 356 CERT. See Council of Energy Resource Tribes Cession, treaties of, by state, 81 table 1, 81 table 2 Cetanwakanmani, 847, 848 CFC. See Celilo Fish Committee Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that Has No Name), 304 Cha-tau-’hne (Yellow Hawk), 359 Chahta Tamaha, 418 Chambers, John, 332 Chambly, 305 Champisaba (Black War Club), 294 Champlain, Samuel de, 236 Chapin, Israel, 287, 288 Chapitone, 334 Charles I, 767 Charles II, 76, 276, 873 Charlton, Richard, 201 Chasta. See Shasta Chatters, Jim, 725 Chattoogee, 430 Chayenne. See Cheyenne Che-chu-chee, 363 Che-kus-kuk, 364 Che-qua-sau-quah, 322 Che-quaw-ka-ko, 325 Checkered (May-zin), 324 Chees-quat-a-law-ny (John Rollin Ridge), 886–887 Chehalis, 226–227 Chekommia (Big River), 298 Chekopeheke Emanthau, 292 Chemakum, 99 Chemehuevi, 273 Chenughiata, Chief, 282 Cherokee, 7, 9, 15–18, 20–23, 30, 32, 43, 52–53, 56–57, 70–73, 88, 104, 105, 107, 211, 213, 246, 248, 251, 260–262, 268, 439, 655–656 Agreement with the Cherokee, March 14, 1834, 320

ABC-CLIO

I-7

Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, 1866, 30 and education, 182, 183 and Fort Gibson, 419 and jurisdiction, 165–166, 174 and New Echota, 429–430 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 88–89, 263–264, 265 and Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 657–658 Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785, 285–286, 451–453 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, 287 Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794, 287 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2, 1798, 289 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 24, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 25, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, January 7, 1806, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Cherokee, September 14, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 8, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, February 27, 1819, 299 Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835, 320–322, 483–491 Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, 363, 542–550 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27, 1868, 368–369 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 See also Five Civilized Tribes Cherokee Boy (Aronne), 298

1-800-368-6868

I-8

Index

Cherokee Commission. See Jerome Commission Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 22, 40, 56–57, 61, 112, 165–166, 213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 655, 671, 926, 953–954 and government-to-government relationship, 930, 931 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, 429 Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, 1866, 30 Cherokee Tobacco case, 43, 44, 667 Cherokee War of 1776, 260 Cheucunsene, 296 Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation, 32, 107 Cheyenne (Chayenne), 24, 30, 101, 103, 104, 106, 252, 253, 254, 256, 269, 270, 271, 272, 733 and education, 183 and Fort Laramie, 423 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July 6, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Cheyenne Reservation, 32 Chicago treaty document, 480–483 treaty history of, 412–413 Treaty of, 317 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833;

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Chickasaw, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, 32, 52–53, 71–72, 73, 211, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 419, 674–675 and addenda treaty, 102 and confederate treaty, 103 and Doaksville, 417–418 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and reconstruction treaty, 105 and removal, 87, 264 Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 24, 1801, 289–290 Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Chickasaw, September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 19, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Chickasaw, August 31, 1830, 310, 464–468 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 22, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362, 527–538 See also Five Civilized Tribes Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 45 Chickmaugee, 430 Chief Man (Rarnleshare), 298 Chien Noir (Macatiwaaluna), 292 Child custody. See Child welfare Child welfare, 8, 36, 114, 118–121

ABC-CLIO

China, 49, 202 Chinook, 97, 226, 227, 229 table 1, 414–415, 415 Chipewyan, 236 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Chippewa, 23, 29, 41, 43, 45, 51, 55, 71, 72, 73, 91–92, 100, 104, 436, 710–711, 721–722, 730–731 and fishing rights, 155–158 and gathering rights, 158–159 and hunting rights, 42 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, August 2, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 24, 1819, 300 Treaty with the Chippewa, June 16, 1820, 300

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Chippewa, January 14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 23, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 7, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842, 331 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 30, 1854, 340–341, 502–507 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394, 627–635 Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), 711 Chivington, John Milton, 733, 754–755, 772–774. See also Sand Creek Massacre Chivington’s Colorado Volunteers, 269 Cho-bah-áh-bish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Cho-cote-harjo, 362 Choctaw, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, 32, 42, 52, 53, 71–72, 211, 248, 259, 260, 261, 262–263, 419, 674–675 and addenda treaty, 102 and confederate treaty, 103 and Dancing Rabbit Creek, 416 and Doak’s Stand, 416–417 and Doaksville, 417–418 and education, 182 and land use, 135 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and reconstruction treaty, 105 and removal, 86–87, 264 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, December 17, 1801, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 17, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, 1803, 291 Treaty with the Choctaw, November 16, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 24, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825, 302 Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830, 310–311, 468–476

ABC-CLIO

I-9

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362, 527–538 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 See also Five Civilized Tribes Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 62 Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 42 Choctaw Telegraph, 418 Chouteau, Auguste, 269, 294–295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 327, 438, 439, 774–775, 797 Chouteau, Pierre, 438–439, 774, 776, 847 Chouteau, Rene Auguste, 774 Christianity, 22, 59, 96, 179, 180–182, 251, 270 and education, 185, 187, 188 Chu-Nuts Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, WoWoz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Chup-co, John (Long John), 362 Churchill, Winston, 796 Citizenship, 8, 33, 169–170 Citizenship Act, 169–170 Civil rights, 35, 114 Civil Rights Act of 1866, 671 Civil Service reform, 272 Civilization, 25, 28, 31, 83, 85, 96, 98, 179, 180–182, 251, 273 and education, 187, 189 program, 255 in southeast, 261–262 Civilization Fund, 30 Clackamas, 229 table 1 Clallam, 99 Claremont, Chief, 303 Clark, Alex, 312 Clark, Ann (Rogers), 775 Clark, George Rogers, 70, 72, 286, 343, 443 Clark, John, 775 Clark, Lewis (Atiatoharognwan), 289 Clark, W. P., 801 Clark, William, 21–22, 89, 252, 269, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 310, 314, 315, 415, 775–776, 797, 837, 846

1-800-368-6868

I-10

Index

Clark, William (cont.) and Cass, Lewis, 771, 772 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and Prairie du Chien, 430 and St. Louis, 438–439 See also Lewis, Meriwether; Lewis and Clark Expedition; Louisiana Purchase Clatsop, 97 Clay, Henry, 16, 85, 870 Clayton, John M., 201 Clean Air Act, 117, 118 Clean Water Act, 117–118 Clear Sky (Esh-ton-o-quot), 287, 323 Clearwater, Frank, 705 Clemson, E. B., 293 Clemson, Eli, 438 Cleveland, Grover, 232, 786 and Eskiminzin, 806 and Hawaii, 204–205 and Jackson, Helen Hunt, 830 and Sitting Bull, 899 Clinton, Bill, 232 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 947 Executive Order 13175, 955 and Trust Doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 958 Clinton, George, 75–76 Clinton, James, 641 Clum, John P., 806 Clymer, George, 289 Co-ha-thlock-co (Cockrane), 313 Coal, 140–141. See also Natural resources Coalition of Eastern Native Americans (CENA), 950 Cobell, Elouise, 140, 727 Cobell case, 140, 727 Cobell v. Babbitt, 727 Cobell v. Kempthorne, 727 Cobell v. Norton, 727, 955 Cochise, 776–778, 812 Cockrane (Co-ha-thlock-co), 313 Coe Hadgo, 316, 835 Coercive assimilation, 110, 111. See also Assimilation Coffee, John, 86, 297, 310, 314 Cohen, Felix S., 778. See also Indian Claims Commission; Indian New Deal Colbert, George, 290, 291, 319 Colbert, Holmes, 362 Colbert, Pitman, 327 Colbert, Winchester, 362 Cole, Robert, 302

www.abc-clio.com

Colley, Samuel G., 772 Collier, John, 34, 111, 170–171, 189, 680, 682, 763, 764, 778, 779–780, 783, 799 and assimilation, 923 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 and Indian New Deal, 934 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Indian New Deal; Indian Reorganization Act Colonial America and Canada, 209 and education, 179–180 and jurisdiction, 162, 163, 169–170 treaties in, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137, 259 treaties of alliance in, 11 treaty negotiation in, 51–53, 53–58 Colorado, 57 gold in, 272 Colton, G. A., 365 Columbia Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Columbia Reservation, 385 Columbia River Indians (River People), 150–152, 155, 227, 414–416 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 155 Columbus, Christopher, 49 Colus Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Colville Agreement with the Columbia and Colville, July 7, 1883, 385 Colville Reservation, 148, 227, 385 Com-o-za, 320 Comanche, 10, 30, 52, 57, 61, 100, 104, 110, 267, 268–269, 270, 271, 272, 410, 677–678 and education, 182 and reconstruction treaty, 106–107 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366 See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Commerce, 49 Commerce clause (of the Constitution), 14, 28, 40, 43, 60, 164, 165, 642–643, 655, 666, 671, 691–692, 943, 954–955 Commercial mooring rights, 43 Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. See Dawes Commission Commissioners, 14 Committee of Original Peoples’ Entitlement, 399 Committee on Indian Affairs, 115, 653 Common land tenure, 134–135 Commons, 134–135 Communal land, 134–135 Community Action Agency (CAA), 35 Compacts, 5, 6 Compensation for Black Hills, 139–140 for mining, 140 See also Annuities; Land compensation Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 117 Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada), 215, 216, 235, 236, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941 Compulsory education, 187. See also Education Comstick, 312 Conaquieso, Chief, 282 Concentration policy, 29–31 Confederated Bands of Kalapuya, 230 table 2 Confederacy, 29, 30 Confederate treaties, 11, 58, 103–105. See also U.S. Civil War

1-800-368-6868

Index Confederated Peoria Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation, 227 Congressional Joint Resolution No. 55, 230 Connecticut, 41 Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 43 Conner, James, 351 Conner, John, 351 Conner, Roberta, 159 Connolly, John, 663 Connolly, William, 662–663 Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 662–663 Connor, John, 352 Connor, P. Edward, 354 Cononicus (Cananacus, Conanicus), 766–767 Conoy, 70, 282 Conroy, Commissioner, 392, 393 Conservation regulations, 45 Constitution Act of 1867 (Canada), 218, 394, 663–664, 673–674, 941 Constitution Act of 1982 (Canada), 209, 638, 720–721, 726, 728 Constitutional Convention, 260 Continental Congress, 13, 27, 53, 163, 260, 640 compensation under, 72–73 treaties under, 70–73 Convention of 1884, 231 table 4 Conventions, 5 Coody, William S., 333 Cook, Captain, 205 Cook’s Landing, 152 Cooley, D. N., 357, 362, 363 Coolidge, Calvin, 33 Cooper, Douglas H., 342, 780–781 Cooper, James Fenimore, 906 Coosewatee, 430 Cope, Jean-Baptiste, 237 Copper Treaty, 91 CORA. See Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority Corn Planter. See Cornplanter Corn Stalk, 294 Cornelius, Jacob, 329 Cornplanter (Corn Planter; Kaintwakon), 74, 75, 76, 287, 289, 290, 781–783, 814, 815, 885

www.abc-clio.com

Cornwallis, General Edward, 237, 757 Corporate development, 34 Costo, Jeannette Henry, 783 Costo, Rupert, 783–784. See also Indian New Deal Cottier, Allen, 690 Cottier, Belva, 861 Cotton gin, 84 Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 114, 175 Council, 13 Council Grove treaty history of, 413–414 See also Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846; Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859 Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), 140, 734 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 62 Court jurisdiction, 36 Court of appeals, Indian, 59 Covenant Chain, 243–244, 245 Covenants, 5, 49 Cow Creek, 226, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Cow-e-to-me-co, 363 Cow-nan-ti-co, 342 Cowlitz, 226 Craig, Thomas, 807 Cram, Rev. Jacob, 885 Crane (Tarhe), 294 Cravat, Rebecca, 843 Crawford, David, 350 Crazy Horse, 898, 901 Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko), 784 Crazy Snake Movement, 817–818 Cree, 101, 219, 238, 240, 278, 382 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 380–381

ABC-CLIO

I-11

Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 388–389 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 395–396 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 See also Swampy Cree Cree-Naskapi Act, 240 Cree v. Flores, 43 Creek, 7, 15–16, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 30, 32, 52–53, 54, 56, 72, 73, 104, 260, 262, 263, 268, 681–682 and addenda treaty, 102–103 Agreement with the Creek, June 29, 1825, 303 and confederate treaty, 103 and land use, 135 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 87, 264 and trade debts, 20 and Trail of Tears, 137 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Creek, August 7, 1790, 287 Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796, 289 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Creek, October 27, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, November 14, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, August 9, 1814, 294 Treaty with the Creek, January 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Creek, January 8, 1821, 301

1-800-368-6868

I-12

Index

Creek (cont.) Treaty with the Creek, February 12, 1825, 302–303 Treaty with the Creek, January 24, 1826, 306 Treaty with the Creek, November 15, 1827, 307–308 Treaty with the Creek, March 24, 1832, 312–313, 476–478 Treaty with the Creek, February 14, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Creek, November 23, 1838, 329–330 Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, 362–363, 538–542 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 See also Five Civilized Tribes Creek War of 1813—1814, 650, 651, 653 Creek War of 1835—1836, 653 Crèvecoeur, Hector St. Jean de, 823 Criminal jurisdiction, 31, 112, 172– 173. See also Jurisdiction Crittenden, Robert, 302 Croghan, Catherine, 760 Croghan, George, 862, 863 Cromwell, John, 307–308 Crook, George, 784, 812, 898, 901, 904, 906 Cross-deputization agreements, 6 Crow, 24, 63–64, 101, 106, 107, 252, 253–254 Agreement with the Crows, May 14, 1880, 385 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August 4, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, 369 the Crow (A-ka-ke), 328 Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670, 901 Crow Dog, Leonard, 743 Crow Foot, 898 Crow Reservation, 113, 375 Crowell, John, 810 Crowfoot, Chief, 384, 785–786 Crown-Indian treaties, 209, 211, 220 Crowther, Bosley, 802 Crume, Marks, 314, 315

www.abc-clio.com

Cu-Zu Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Cultural intolerance, and education, 187–190 Cultural items, 124–126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Cultural patrimony, 124, 125, 126 Cultural resource protection, 118 Culture, and land ownership, 144 Culver, F. B., 351 Culver, Samuel H., 338 Cumberland Presbyterian Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions, 418 Cumming, A., 348 Cummins, Richard W., 332 Cunningham, Jack, 712–713 Curtis, Charles, 676 Curtis, S. R., 358, 359, 360, 364, 772 Curtis Act, 32–33, 673, 675, 676–677 Custer, George Armstrong, 256, 271, 719, 784, 884, 898, 901 and Black Kettle, 755 and Dull Knife, 801 Cuthead Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Dade, Francis, 804 Dakota (Sioux), 28 and Prairie du Chien, 432 and Traverse des Sioux, 441 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Sioux The Dalles, 415 treaty history of, 414–416 Treaty of, 98–99 See also Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855 Dalles Dam, 152 Dalles Falls, 151 Dancing Rabbit Creek treaty history of, 416 Treaty of, 9, 23, 86–87, 310–311, 416, 653, 657, 935 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830 Dart, Anson, 97, 225–226, 229 table 1 Dartmouth College, 180, 181 Das-Pia Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-MaDo, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3

ABC-CLIO

Daveiss, Joseph, 647 Davidson, John, 745 Davis, Edmund, 892 Davis, Jefferson, 809, 901 Davis, John W., 314, 315 Davis, Lewis, 365 Davy (Saa-Hajo), 313 Dawes, Henry L., 32, 671, 672, 786, 787–788 Dawes, Mitchell, 787 Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes), 676–677, 786–787 Dawes General Allotment (Severalty) Act. See General Allotment Act Daws, Gavan, 203 Dawson, S. J., 377 de Callieres, Louis-Hector, 244 de Cavagnial, Marquis Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, 637 De Céloron de Blainville, Pierre Joseph, 862–863 De La Cruz, Joseph Burton, 788–789 de Vattel, Emmerich, 50, 945, 946 de Vitoria, Francisco, 50, 69, 209, 924 Dearborn, Henry, 20, 292, 438, 789–791 Decker, George, 796 Declaration of Independence, 69, 163 DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District, 62, 63 Deer, Ada E., 791–792. See also Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders; Menomie Termination Act Deer, Bob, 792 Deer, Constance Stockton (Wood), 791, 792 Deer, Joseph, 791 Deh Cho Dene, 392, 400 DeLancey, James, 823 Delano, Colombus, 414 Delaware, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 20, 21, 52, 53, 55, 57, 70, 71, 79, 100, 104, 163, 243–244, 245–246, 248, 268, 282 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot, December 14, 1843, 332 and Fort Pitt, 424 and St. Louis, 438 Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778, 283–284, 449–450

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, September 24, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, 1860, 351 Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1866, 363 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 and Vincennes, 442 Delaware Reservation, 351 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 716, 729–730 Deline, 216–217 Delineation of demands, 255 Dellums, Ron, 713 Deloria, Barbara, 795 Deloria, Vine, Jr., 51, 52, 53, 792–795 DeMaillot, Keziah. See Malotte (DeMaillot) Keziah DeMallie, Raymond, 51, 52, 53, 254–255 Dene, 240, 380, 382, 386, 387, 390–391, 392–393, 400, 401 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27 to August 30, 1921, 391–393

www.abc-clio.com

Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 See also Athapaskan; Chipewyan; Sahtu Dene Denmark, 177 Denny, David, 895 Denny, John (Johnny Sundown), 329 Denonville, Marquis de, 288 Densmore, Christopher, 884, 886 Denver, James W., 349 Departments of Indian Affairs, 640 Dependency, 144 DePuy, H., 51 Dermer, Thomas, 854 Deschutes, 148 Deserontyon, John, 76, 239 Deskaheh (Levi General), 796–797 Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS), 172 Detroit, 246 DGF. See U.S. Department of Game and Fish Dias, Bartholomeu, 49 Dickinson, Emily, 829, 830, 906 Diefenbaker, John, 687 Diegunio Treaty with the Diegunio, January 1852, 231 table 3 Dieskau, Baron, 823 Diet, 134 Dillon, G. P., 202 Diné Bikéyah, 410–412 Diné (Navajo), 176, 370–372, 661, 662. See also Navajo Diseases. See European diseases Disturnell, John, 809 Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Do-He-No-Geh-Weh. See Parker, Ely S. Doak, Josiah, 417 Doak, William, 416, 417 Doak’s Stand treaty history of, 416–417 Treaty of, 262–263, 310, 416–417 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820; Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825 Doaksville treaty history of, 417–418 Treaty of, 264, 418

ABC-CLIO

I-13

See also Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837; Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854 Doctrine of discovery, 652, 924–925, 944, 945, 946 Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775-1979 (Deloria and DeMallie), 51 Dodge, Ben, 799 Dodge, Chee, 912 Dodge, Henry Chee (Hastiin Adiits’a’ii; Man Who Interprets), 91, 324, 325, 326-327, 328, 754, 798–799 Dodge, Thomas, 799 Dog Soldiers, 367 Dogrib, 392 Dohasan (Little Bluff), 850, 896 Dole, Sanford, 205 Dole, William, 25, 186, 352, 353, 355, 356 Domestic colonialism, 96 Domestic dependent nation, 22, 40, 57, 64, 81, 88, 112, 165, 166, 184, 213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 925–926, 926 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust relationship, 957 Dominic, Lydia Kamaka’eha. See Liliuokalani, Queen Dominion Lands Act, 664 Dominion of Canada, 236, 663 Donehogä’wa. See Parker, Ely S. Dongan, Thomas, 275–276 Doniphan, Alexander W., 267, 411 Doolittle, James R., 30, 800 Doolittle Commission, 800 Doolittle Committee, 30, 270, 426 Dorian, Paul, 349 Dorset, 937 Doty, James Duane, 354 Dougherty, John, 325, 329 Doughty, John, 420 Douglas, Freeland Edward, 818 Douglas, James, 238–239, 641, 642, 701 Douglas, William O., 694, 695

1-800-368-6868

I-14

Index

Douglass, John T., 327 Douw, Volkert P., 640 Doyle, James, 156 Drachard, Christian, 279 Drew, John, 333 Drew, Richard, 333 Driver, Isaac, 312 Driving Clouds (Nay-gee-zhig), 323–324 Drooping Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884 Drummer’s War, 237 DRUMS. See Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders Drybones, Joseph, 688 Duane, James, 71 Dull Knife (Morning Star), 801–802 Dumont, Alexis, 803 Dumont, Gabriel, 802–803, 939–940 Dundy, Elmer, 829, 904 Dunquod (Half King), 298 Duro v. Reina, 113, 114 Dussault, René, 805 Dutch, 51, 211 and Canada, 235 Duval, William P., 302 Duwamish (Dwamish, Dwámish), 16, 99 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Dwamish. See Duwamish Dysart, George, 697 E-sta-mah-za (Joseph La Flesche), 356 Eades, Susie Rozetta, 818 Eagle Heart (Tenetendi), 897 the Eagle (Hoo-yah), 324 Eagle Protection Act, 158, 722–723 Eagle Striking with Talons. See Kicking Bird Earl, Anthony, 157 Eastern Abenaki, 75 Eastman, Charles, 189 Eaton, John, 86, 88, 310, 311, 319 Economic development, 33, 36, 63, 117 Economic Opportunity Act, 35, 114 Economy agrarian-based, 76 land-based, 134 Ecosystems, 140 Edmunds, Newton, 357, 358, 359, 360, 364, 385 Education, 59, 179–190, 270, 709–710 in Alaska, 195

www.abc-clio.com

compulsory, 187 funding for, 43, 182, 190 programs, 690 success of, 188–189 See also Schools Edwards, Ninian, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299, 774, 797 Eel River, 20, 79 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 EEOA. See Equal Employment Opportunity Act EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 43 Efau Emauthlau, 301 Efiematla, 313 Eisenhower, Dwight and Public Law 280, 684 and relocation program, 689 and termination, 953 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 Eisenhower administration, 686 El Barbon, 748 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 709 Elk, John, 670–671 the Elk (Pa), 298 Elk v. Wilkins, 169, 670–671 Ellicott, Joseph, 290 Ellis, Albert G., 334 Ellsworth, Henry J., 315 Ellsworth, Henry L., 315, 316, 317, 319 Emartta, Charley, 316 Emartta, Holata, 316 Emathla, Charley, 804 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 829 Eminent domain, 136 Emma, Queen, 203 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon et al. v. Alfred L. Smith et al., 175 Endangered Species Act, 722–723 Enehau Thlucco, 292 Energy Policy Act, 734 Energy projects, 63

ABC-CLIO

Energy resource management, 734 England, 13, 75, 77, 162 and Indian alliances, 52 and treaty negotiation, 51, 53 and war with France, 55 English as a second language (ESL) instruction, 710 Enigmanee (Flies as He Walks), 294 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 117, 161 Environmental regulation, 117–118 EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA), 62, 708 Equal Rights for Everyone, 722 Erasmus, George Henry, 804–805 Erie Canal, 84 Es-kin-in-zin (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Es-Kun Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Esa-tai, 871 Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), 287, 323 Eskiminzin (Es-kin-in-zin; Skimmy; Haské Bahnzin), 805–806 Eskimo, 209, 720 Esquimaux, 279 Ethnic cleansing, 165 Etowah, 430 Europe, 6, 13, 39 and Canada, 209 and international agreements, 49–64 treaty negotiation in, 50–53 European aggression and sovereignty, 162–163 European diseases, 17, 134, 253, 254, 270 in Hawaii, 202 European imperialism, 96 Evans, Daniel J., 789 Evans, John, 772 Evarts, Jeremiah, 22, 653 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670 Executive branch, 95–96 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 947 Executive Order 13175, 955 Executive Order Reservations, 926–927. See also Reservation Explanatory Note of 1796, 55, 56 Express trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine External sovereignty, 947. See also Sovereignty Extinguishment, 400

1-800-368-6868

Index Extracurricular activities, and education, 188 Factories. See Trading posts Fair Haired Old Man, 896 Fall, Albert B., 763–764 Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 19, 75, 245, 246, 443, 645, 648 Falling Hail (Wasoukapaha), 294 Fallon Paiute-Shoshone, 116 FAP. See Federal Acknowledgment Process Farmer’s Brother, 75, 76, 287 Farnsworth, H. W., 352 Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP), 927–928, 929, 941, 942, 950, 951, 953 Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, 928 Federal Acknowledgment Project, 176 Federal Act, 678 Federal courts, and canons of treaty construction, 11 Federal Enclaves Act, 669 Federal Indian Law, 693 Federal Power Act, 688–689 Federal Power Commission, 44 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 63, 688–689 Federal programs, tribal administration of, 116–117 Federal Security Agency, 35 Federally recognized tribes, 5, 171, 175, 176–177, 734, 927, 929, 941, 947, 950. See also Nonrecognized tribes; State-recognized tribes Fessenden, William, 202 Fetterman, William, 784, 883 Fetterman Massacre, 271 Fields, Richard, 333 Fields, Sallocooke, 297 Fillmore, Millard, 341, 433, 760, 842, 867 Final Umbrella Agreement, 726 Fire Chief (Pad-a-ga-he), 356 First in the War Party (Shernakitare), 298 First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Self-Government Agreement, 404 First Nations, 209, 216–220, 237, 377, 391, 403, 404–405, 436, 641–642, 663, 720, 726–727, 734, 938, 940–941, 948–950

www.abc-clio.com

definition of, 236 See also individual tribes First Riel Rebellion, 939 First Seminole War, 79, 165 Fish Carrier, 287 Fish-ins, 152 the Fish (Na-maing-sa), 294 Fisher v. District Court, 114 Fishing rights, 25, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, 134, 147–150 in Alaska, 195–196 in Canada, 218 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, 150–155 in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Fiske, Helen Maria. See Jackson, Helen Hunt Fiske, Nathan Welby, 828 Fitch, Congressman, 666–667 Fitzpatrick, Thomas “Broken Hand,” 254, 336, 338, 769 Five Civilized Tribes, 74–75, 77–79, 95, 206, 271, 676–677 and confederate treaty, 103–104 and education, 183–184 and Indian removal, 83 and jurisdiction, 165 and reconstruction treaties, 105–107 and removal, 137 and U.S. Civil War, 58 See also Cherokee; Chickasaw; Choctaw; Creek; Dawes Commission; Seminole Five Nations Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 See also Cayuga; Mohawk; Oneida; Onondaga; Seneca Flathead, 99, 227, 252 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Flathead Indian Reservation, 227 Fletcher, Alice C., 32 Flies as He Walks (Enigmanee), 294 Flood Control Act, 723 Florida, 20, 28, 52, 56, 77 gaming in, 175, 176 and Indian removal, 85 treaties in, 259–265 Florida tribes, 77–79 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, September 18, 1823, 302 See also individual tribes

ABC-CLIO

I-15

Folsom, David, 302 Folsom, Israel, 346 Folsom, Sampson, 337, 346 Folsom, Sophia, 876 Fond du Lac, 157, 341 the Fool Dog (Shon-kah-we-to-ko), 359 Fools Crow, Chief Frank, 705 Forbes, John, 424 Forbes, William H., 376, 377 Ford, John, 802 Foreman, Stephen, 333 Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of, 443 Forney, Daniel M., 301 Forsyth, Robert, 764, 765 Forsyth, Thomas, 301, 430–431, 764, 765, 776, 806–808 Forsyth, William, 806–807 Fort Adams, Treaty of, 416 Fort Belknap Reservation, 170, 678 Fort Berthold Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, 1866, 363–364 Fort Bridger, Treaty of, 227–228. See also Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868 Fort Crawford, 431 Fort Duquesne, 424 Fort Finney, Treaty of, 71–72, 246 Fort Gibson treaty history of, 419 Treaty of, 264 Fort Green Ville, 426–427 Fort Hall Reservation, 228, 372, 374 Fort Hamilton, 73 Fort Harmar, 19, 53 treaty history of, 420 Treaty of, 15, 72, 73, 137, 420, 644, 645 See also Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794; Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789 Fort Harrison, 444, 647 treaty history of, 421 See also Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816 Fort Jackson, Treaty of, 21, 84, 262, 650, 651 Fort John, 422 Fort Knox, 443

1-800-368-6868

I-16

Index

Fort Laramie treaty history of, 421–423 Treaty of, 24, 29, 64, 101, 106, 139, 255, 256–257, 269, 271, 691, 705, 706, 719 treaty document, 498–500 See also Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851 Fort McDowell, 136 Fort McIntosh, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, 137, 246, 285, 420. See also Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785 Fort McPherson, 400, 401 Fort Miami, 75 Fort Pitt treaty history of, 424–425 Treaty of, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 953 See also Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778 Fort Stanwix, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, 73, 75, 137, 246, 288, 639, 641 treaty document, 450–451 See also Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768; Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784 Fort Sumner treaty history of, 425–426 See also Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868 Fort Wayne, Treaty of, 20, 21, 247, 440, 442, 444, 646 Fort William, 422 Fort Wise, Treaty of, 269 Fos-har-jo, 362 Foster, Lafayette S., 800 Foster care. See Child welfare Four Lakes, Battle of, 227 Fowler, Emily, 829 Fox, 17, 30, 70, 100, 103, 278 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Fox, September 14, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291, 456–459 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 303–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Fox, George, 873 Fox, Joel, 63 Fox, Noel, 156 FPC v. Tuscarora, 44 France, 13, 28, 49, 162 and Canada, 209, 235, 236–237 and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202, 229 and Indian alliances, 52 and Louisiana Cession, 55–56 and Louisiana Purchase, 55, 77, 84, 134, 137, 252, 417 and Northeast, 243–244 and war with England, 55 See also French and Indian War Francis, Turbot, 640 Frank, Billy, Jr., 152, 707 Franklin, Benjamin, 51, 69, 282, 823, 874 and Canassatego, 756, 757 and Hendrick, 822 Franklin, Jesse, 297 Franklin, Treaty of, 264 Franklin, William, 282 Free-passage treaties, 100 Freedmen’s Bureau, 29–30 Freeman, Thomas, 442 Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 86 Frémont, John Charles, 660, 769, 770

ABC-CLIO

French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War), 27, 69, 211, 238, 245, 424, 440, 637, 638 French Revolution, 211 Friends (Quakers), 184 Funding for education, 182, 190 Fur trade, 17, 84, 136, 155, 421–422, 430–431, 938–939. See also Trade Furnas, Robert W., 356 Ga-he-ga-zhinga (Little Chief), 356 Gadsden, Christopher, 808 Gadsden, James, 88, 302, 313, 316, 808–809 Gadsden Purchase, 57. See also Gadsden, James Gaiant’waka, 815 Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 753, 810–811, 835–836 Gaines, John, 225, 229 table 1 Gaiwí:yo, 814–816 Galissoniere, Marquis de la, 862 Gallup, Albert, 330 Gambling. See Gaming Gaming, 8–9, 36, 118, 121–124, 175–176, 643, 723–725, 928, 942. See also Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Garcia, Micente, 100 Garden River, 436 Gardiner, James B., 89, 312 Garland, Samuel, 346 Gas, 140. See also Natural resources Gates, Horatio, 757 Gatewood, Charles, 813 Gathering rights, 41, 45, 134, 147–150 in Great Lakes, 155, 158–159 in Pacific Northwest, 159 Gauthier, John, 792 Gawaso Wanneh (Arthur Parker), 816 Gay Head Wampanoag, 116 General, Alexander, 796 General, Levi (Deskaheh), 796–797 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 7, 24, 30, 32–33, 33, 36, 59–60, 109–110, 138, 167, 206, 672–673, 920, 921, 954 and Alaska, 195 and assimilation, 922–923 and Atoka Agreement, 674, 675 and Curtis Act, 676 and Elk v. Wilkins, 671 and guardianship/wardship, 932 and Indian country, 933

1-800-368-6868

Index and Indian Reorganization Act, 680 and Indian Territory, 937 and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 694 and Rice v. Cayetano, 732 and sacred site, 947 and sovereignty, 948 See also Allotment; Assimilation General Land Office, 29 General trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine George II, 638, 639, 823 George III, 55, 69, 163, 211, 279, 640, 759, 814 George V, 796 Georgia, 16, 21, 22–23, 40, 52, 56–57, 72 and Indian removal, 85 and jurisdiction, 165–166 removal in, 263–264 Germany, 229 Geronimo (Goyathlay, Goyakla, Goyahkla; He Who Yawns), 188, 268, 812–813 Ghent, Treaty of, 56, 78, 80, 237, 647, 649, 650–651, 651. See also War of 1812 GI Bill. See Servicemen’s Readjustment Act Gibbon, John, 898 Gibbs, John, 860 Gibson, George, 419 Gibson, Henry B., 302 Gift giving, 255 Gila River, 116 Gilas, 267 Gilbert, Henry, 341, 347 Gildersleeves, 705 Gillet, Ransom H., 329 Gish-tah-wah-gu (Strong Walker), 349, 356 Gitksan, 729–730 Gladwin, Henry, 879 Glass, 316 GLIFWC. See Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Godfrey, Francis, 330 Gold, 31 in Black Hills, 139–140, 719 in California, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, 254, 659, 660 in Colorado, 272 See also Natural resources Good Chief (Petaheick), 298 Good Hunter, Captain, 312 Good Squad, 705

www.abc-clio.com

Good Thunder, 356 Goodnight, Charles, 871 Goodrich, William, 744 Goodstream (Ohnaweio), 289 Gordeau Reservation, 302 Gordon, Harry, 424 Gorton, Slade, 153, 789 Gostrax, Chief, 282 Gousa, 297 Gover, Kevin, 733 Government-to-government relationship, 732, 733, 930–931, 958 Goyahkla (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Goyakla (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Goyathlay (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Gra-ta-mah-zhe (Standing Hawk), 356 Graham, George, 296 Graham, John, 295, 744 Graham, Richard, 301 Grand Council of the Cree, 215, 395, 397 Grand Pawnee, 319 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee— Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Grand Portage, 157, 341 Grand River, 272 Grand Traverse Band, 43 Grande Ronde Reservation, 226 Grandpré, Treaty of, 259 Grant, Ulysses S., 31, 58, 166, 184, 231 table 4, 232, 272, 768, 777, 854, 868 and Parker, Ely S., 869 and Satanta, 892–893 Grant administration, 30 Grattan, John L., 784 Grattan, Lawrence, 900–901 Grave Creek, 342 Graves, protection of, 124–126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Graves, Thomas, 308 Gray, Horace, 670 Gray, William, 289 Gray Head, 755 Greasy Grass, Battle of, 256 Great American Desert, 936 Great Britain, 6, 28, 49, 55, 88, 97 and Canada, 209, 210, 211, 214, 235, 236, 237–238

ABC-CLIO

I-17

and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202 and Iroquois Confederacy, treaty with, September 24, 1664, 211 and Nigeria, 170 and Northeast, 243–244 and Revolutionary War, 11, 13–14, 18–19, 163, 259–260 and Revolutionary War (U.S.), 212 and treaty negotiation, 51 and War of 1812, 17, 21, 56, 84, 137 Great Dakota Reservation, 139 Great Depression, 34 Great Father, 252–253, 254 Great Lakes, 155–156, 214, 216 gathering rights in, 158–159 treaties in, 243–249 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), 158, 159, 433, 721, 813 Great Mahele, 201, 230 Great Peace. See Montreal, Treaty of Great Peace Commission, 106, 107 Great Plains, 30 treaties in, 251–257 Great Sioux Agreement, 32 Great Sioux Reservation, 31, 256, 385, 719 Great Society programs, 35, 114 Great Speaker (Majigabo), 798 Great-Tree, 74 Great Walker (Mah-ne-hah-nah), 302 Greene, Nathaniel, 426 Greenland, 177 Greenville treaty history of, 426–427 Treaty of, 19, 20, 55, 76, 79, 245, 246, 421, 426–427, 443, 645, 646 See also Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814 Greenwood, Alfred B., 351, 352 Gregory, Dick, 152 Greig, John, 302 Grimm, Frank, 705 Gros Bled (Wabakinklelia), 292 Gros Ventre, 24, 101, 678–679 Grotius, Hugo, 50, 54, 924 Ground, Jabez, 349 GSA. See Gwich’in Settlement Area Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 24, 29, 96, 100, 143, 268, 272, 434, 659, 660. See also Mexican-American War

1-800-368-6868

I-18

Index

Guadalupe (wife of Kicking Bird), 838 Guardianship/wardship, 931–932 Guatanamo, 272 Guerin v. The Queen, 949 Guernsey, Orrin, 358, 359, 360, 364 Guess, George, 78, 297, 308 Guitan, 851 Gulf of Mexico, 56 Gunpowder, 49 Gunshot Treaty, 239 Guopahko (Mamadayte), 851 Gutenberg, Johannes, 49 Gwich’in (Gwitchin; People of the Caribou), 240, 392 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, April 1992, 400–401 Gwich’in Land and Water Board, 401 Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board, 401 Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board, 401 Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA), 400, 401 Gwich’ya Gwich’in, 400 Gwynne, John, 674 Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk), 304 Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee (Peter Pitchlynn), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Hagan, William T., 32 Hahshequarhiqua, 291 Haibohaa (Branching Horn), 294 Haida, 196 Haida Nation case, 220 Hainai, 268 Haisanwee (Horn), 294 Haldimand, Frederick, 759 Hale, C. H., 230 table 2, 353 Half King (Dunquod), 298 Half-Town, 74 Halfbreed Commission, 392 Halfbreed Scrip, 392 Hall, Emmett, 702 Hamilton, Allen, 330 Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 715–716 Hamtramck, John F., 914 Handsome Lake (Sganyadí:yoh; Skaniadario), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Hard Hickory, 312 Hard Labor, Treaty of, 282 Hard Rock Café, Seminole purchase of, 735

www.abc-clio.com

Hard Rock International Restaurants, 735 Hard Walker (Wastch-com-ma-nu), 356 Harjo, Bill. See Harjo, Chitto Harjo, Chitto (Bill Harjo), 817–818 Harjo, Suzan Shown, 818–819 Harlan, Marshall, 671 Harland, James, 368 Harmar, Josiah, 73, 420, 745, 849, 902, 903, 913 Harmar’s defeat, 245 Harney, William, 256, 269, 271, 358, 366, 367, 369, 370, 901 Harper, Kenton, 337 Harris, Carey A., 328, 329 Harrison, Benjamin, 204 Harrison, William Henry, 16, 20, 80, 246–247, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 421, 436, 819–820 and Black Hawk, 752–753 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 811 and Hawaii, 204 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and Little Turtle, 850 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 and St. Louis, 438 and Tecumseh, 905 and Thames, Battle of the, 648–649 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, 646–647 and Tippecanoe River, 440 and Vincennes, 442–443 and Wabash River, 444 and Wayne, Anthony, 914 and Wells, William, 914 Hartford, Treaty of, 245 Harvey, Thomas H., 332, 333 Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod (Barboncito), 370, 371, 412, 748–749 Haské Bahnzin (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Haskell Boarding School, 188, 189, 190. See also Schools Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU), 190 Hastiin Adiits’a’ii (Henry Chee Dodge), 798–799 Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), 13, 163, 164. See also Iroquois Haudenosaunee League of Nations, 177 Haunsiaugh (Boyer), 298

ABC-CLIO

Havasupai, 272 Haven, Jens, 279 Hawaii, 199–207 agriculture in, 202, 203, 206 annexation of, 200, 202–203, 205–207 and business community, 203–204 European diseases in, 202 foreign treaties in, 199–202 and France, 199, 200, 201–202, 229 government overthrow in, 204–205 and Great Britain, 199, 200, 201–202 land claims in, 200–202 and land compensation, 200 and land ownership, 201–202, 205–207 and reciprocity with U.S., 202–203 religion in, 200 sovereignty in, 203, 207 sugar industry in, 201–202, 203, 204, 206 and trade, 203, 204, 232 treaties in, 228–232, 231 table 4 voting in, 203–204 whaling industry in, 201, 202, 203 See also Kingdom of Hawaii Hawaii Committee of Public Safety, 204 Hawaii Constitution of 1840, 200 Hawaii Constitution of 1864, 203 Hawaiian Homelands Program, 207 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 206, 732 Hawaiian Islands Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, December 1849, 231 table 4, 232 Hawaiian Natives, 199–207 Hawaiian Organic Act, 205, 206 Hawaiians, 732–733 Hawkins, Benjamin, 286, 289, 290, 821–822, 856–857 Hawley, Joseph, 640 Hayes, Rutherford B., 868 HBC. See Hudson’s Bay Company He Who Yawns (Geronimo), 188, 268, 812–813 Head, Lafayette, 354 Headright, 140 Heald, Nathan, 442, 807, 915 Heart, Jonathan, 420 Heavy Clouds (Shu-kah-bi), 349 Heckewelder, John, 246

1-800-368-6868

Index Hell Gate, 227, 230 table 2 Helm, Linai T., 807 Henderson, John B., 271, 366, 367, 369 Hendrick (Theyanoguin, Tiyanoga), 243, 822–823, 836 Henley, Thomas J., 661 Henry the Navigator, 49 Hepburn, William, 745 Hepner, George, 342 Her-Holy-Door, 897, 899 Hernandez, General, 835 Herrera, 853 Herriman, David, 341 HHCA. See Hawaiian Homes Commission Act Hick, John, 316 Hickel, Walter, 197 Hickory Log, 430 Hicks, Charles, 888 Hicks, John, 343 Hidatsa, 106, 252, 253, 254 Higby, William, 800 Hill, John, 279 Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt. See Joseph, Chief HINU. See Haskell Indian Nations University His Red Nation (Little Crow), 847–848 Historic Sites Act, 947 Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 677, 824–825 Ho-Chunk, 23 Hog Creek Shawnee, 312 Hoh, 99 Hole-in-the-Day (Que-we-zance), 355, 365 Holland, 162 Holland Land Company, 688 Hollow Horn Bear, 901 Holston, Treaty of, 19, 22, 251, 286, 287, 656. See also Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791 Holy Ground, Battle of, 650 Homestead Act, 27, 29, 32, 59, 270, 947 Honas (Ronesass), 298 Honolulu Rifles, 203 Hoo-yah (the Eagle), 324 Hooker Jim, 768 Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, 174–175 Hoover Commission, 34–35 Hopewell, Treaty of, 19, 22, 57, 71–72, 211, 260–261, 285, 655–656. See also Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785

www.abc-clio.com

Hopi, 272, 410 Hopi Reservation, 140 Hopson, Peregrine Thomas, 51 Horn (Haisanwee), 294 Horne, Esther Burnett, 188, 189 Horonu, 330 Horseshoe Bend, Battle of (Tohopeka), 84, 649–651 Hosmer, Brian C., 838 House Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, 197 House Concurrent Resolution 108, 35, 111, 171, 680, 683–684, 694, 932, 948, 952–953. See also Termination House Resolution 4497, 682–683 Howard, Benjamin, 807 Howard, Francis, 276, 277–278 Howard, Mary, 894 Howard, Oliver Otis, 777–778 Howe, S. D., 230 table 2, 353 Howechees Treaty with the Howechees, etc., April 1851, 231 table 3 Howling Wolf, 838 Hoxie, Frederick, 253–254 Hualapai, 272, 273 Hubbard, Asahel W., 800 Hubbard, Niles, 886 Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), 214, 235, 238–239, 335, 664, 665, 715 Huebschmann, Francis, 339, 348 Hui Ala Loa, 207 Hulbert, John, 323, 330 Hull, William, 293, 791, 915 Human remains, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Hunkapapa (Sioux; Hunkpapa, Onkpahpah) Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Hunt, Alexander C., 368 Hunting rights, 22, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, 134 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, 150–155 in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Huntington, J. W. Perit, 227, 230 table 2, 355, 357, 360

ABC-CLIO

I-19

Huntington, Samuel, 744 Hupa Reservation, 671 Huron, 51, 75, 211, 238, 638 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 335 Huron-Petun, 278 Hurr, William, 352 Huss, John, 333 Hutchins, Charles, 230 table 2, 353 Hydaburg, 196 Hydro-Quebec. See Quebec HydroElectric Commission Hyman, Harold, 27 I-on-i. See Aionai ICC. See Indian Claims Commission ICRA. See Indian Civil Rights Act ICWA. See Indian Child Welfare Act Idaho, 225 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 931 Identity, 689–690 Ignace, Georgianna, 792 IGR. See Institute for Government Research IGRA. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act IITC. See International Indian Treaty Council Illinois, treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Illinois Confederacy, 412 Implied abrogation, 45 In re Estate of Kamehameha IV, 205 Indian Act of Canada, 217, 401, 405, 668, 949 Bill C-31, 668 Indian affairs, control of, 41 Indian Affairs Committee, 115 Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Vol. 1 and 2, 693 Indian Appropriations Act, 31, 97, 666–667, 667 Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 934 Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act, 681 Indian Bill of Rights, 674 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 36, 118–121, 174, 710 Indian Citizenship Act, 33 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 36, 692–693 Indian Civilization Act, 181–182, 270 Indian Civilization Fund Act, 28 Indian Claims Commission Act (Public Law 726), 34, 171, 682–683. See also Cohen, Felix S.

1-800-368-6868

I-20

Index

Indian Claims Commission (ICC), 133–134, 136, 139–140, 171, 257, 679, 680, 719, 825–826 and Indian New Deal, 934 and specific claims, 949, 950 See also Cohen, Felix S. Indian Code, 321 Indian country, 933. See also Indian Territory Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge (Kennedy Report), 709 Indian Education Act, 116, 709 Indian Education Assistance Act, 116 Indian Education Assistance and Self-Determination Act, 36 Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act, 116. See also Schools Indian Financing Act, 117, 929 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 36, 117, 118, 121–124, 175, 643, 723–725, 735, 929, 956. See also Gaming Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 116 Indian Health Service, 115, 116, 172, 941, 950 Indian Intercourse Acts, 28 Indian Land Consolidation Act, 117 Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 116 Indian Mineral Development Act, 36, 117 Indian nations, treaties between, 272–273 Indian New Deal, 34, 35, 161, 179, 680, 681, 682, 934–935. See also Cohen, Felix S.; Collier, John; Costo, Rupert Indian Nonintercourse Act, 919 Indian Oil Leasing Act, 927 Indian Peace Commission, 30, 256, 426 Indian removal, 23–24, 28–29, 83–92, 133, 137, 165, 263–265, 416–417, 430, 935–936 end of, 31 origins of, 83–86 See also Indian Removal Act; Relocation Indian Removal Act, 28, 86, 87, 88, 109, 137, 263–264, 305,

www.abc-clio.com

310, 311, 318, 320, 643, 652–653, 657, 730, 935, 936 and Indian Territory, 947, 948 See also Indian Removal Indian Removal bill, 55 Indian Reorganization Act (WheelerHoward Act), 34, 35, 36, 111, 133, 170–171, 680–681 and Alaska, 196 and allotments, 921 and Federal Acknowledgment Process, 928 and guardianship/wardship, 932 and Indian Allotment Act, 672 and Indian New Deal, 934 and Morton v. Mancari, 708 and Nixon, Richard, 698 See also Allotments; Cohen, Felix S.; Collier, John Indian rights. See Treaty Rights Indian Rights Association (IRA), 826–827 Indian Self-Determination Act, 116, 712 Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 173 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 697, 710 Indian Service, 27, 34 and education, 184 Indian Specific Claims Commission, 949 Indian Springs, Treaty of, 263, 856, 857 Indian Territory, 936–937 Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory, September 13, 1865, 357 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 See also Indian country; Indian land; Vincennes, Indiana Indian title, 920. See also Aboriginal title Indian Trade Act, 28 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 645, 936 and Alaska, 195 Indian Tribal Energy and SelfDetermination Act, 734 Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act, 929 Indian Tribal Justice Act, 116 Indian War of 1855—1856, 227, 428

ABC-CLIO

Indiana, 19 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Indians of All Tribes, 691 Inherent Right to Self-Government policy, 726 Inhofe, Senator, 140 Inshta Theamba (Susette LaFlesche Tibbles), 905–906 Institute for Government Research (IGR), 33–34, 679 Integration, 34–35 Inter Caetera, 954 Intercourse, and trade, 27–28 Intercourse Acts, 164–165 Internal sovereignty, 947. See also Sovereignty International agreements, Indian treaties as, 49–64 International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), 712 International law, 49–50, 54 International treaties and legal standards, 55 and negotiation subjects, 54 Inuit, 195, 209, 216, 217, 218, 220, 240, 399, 664, 715–716, 720, 937–938 British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, April 8, 1765, 279–280 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 395–396 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), 938 Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC), 398, 401–402, 938 Inuktitut, 279, 396, 403 Inupiat, 196 Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest Territories, 240 Inuvialuit Corporate Group, 399 Inuvialuit Final Agreements, June 1984, 398–400, 938 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 399 Inuvik, 400 Iou-Ol-Umnes Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Iowa repatriation in, 176 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Iowa Indians, 30, 100, 103

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Ioway and Prairie du Chien, 431 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Iqaluit, 240 Iron Eye (Joseph LaFlesche), 905–906 Iron Whip (Wah-gah-sap-pi), 356 Iron Wind (Tatarnaza), 294 Iroquois, 13, 19, 23, 51, 53, 75, 211, 235, 236, 237, 243, 244, 246, 638 and British Crown, treaty with, September 24, 1664, 211 and Fort Harmar, 420 See also Haudenosaunee; Six Nations Iroquois Loyalists, 239 Isabella, Queen, 49 Isabella Indian Reservation, 355 Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha (Puffing Eyes), 358 Isparhecher, Chief, 135, 676 Istowun-eh’pata (Packs a Knife), 785 ITC. See Inuit Tapirisat Corporation J-a-pu (the One Who Walks against the Others), Chief, 303 Jackson, Andrew, 16, 22, 23, 25, 56, 79, 81, 166, 213, 262, 294, 297, 299, 301, 650, 827–828, 835, 844, 865, 909 and Black Hawk, 754 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 762 and Cass, Lewis, 772 and civilization policy, 83 and Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty, 310 and Dodge, Henry, 798 and eminent domain, 136 and Gadsden, James, 808 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 810, 811

www.abc-clio.com

and Ghent, Treaty of, 651 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 and Indian removal, 84, 85–86, 88, 90, 91, 416, 430, 935 and Indian Removal Act, 652, 653 and Indian Territory, 936 and Lea, Luke, 842 and McIntosh, William, Jr., 857 and New Echota Treaty, 320–321 and Pushmataha, 882, 883 and removal, 263–264, 265, 305 and Ross, John, 891 and Trail of Tears, 657, 658 and trust responsibility, 957 and Worcester v. Georgia, 655, 656 Jackson, Helen Hunt (Helen Maria Fiske), 828–830, 906 Jackson, Henry, 197, 683, 952 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 Jackson, Sheldon, 195 Jackson, William S., 829 James, Edward, 159 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), November 11, 1975, 240, 395–396, 397, 726, 938 James Bay Development Corporation, 215, 395, 397 James Bay Energy Corporation, 395, 397 James Bay Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 9 James I, 76 James II, 76 Japan, 199, 229, 687 Japanese Canadians, 687 Jaramillo, Maria Josefa, 770 Jason, Chief, 374 Jay, John, 75–76 Jay Treaty, 55, 56, 237, 645, 646 JBNQA. See James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement Jefferson, Thomas, 19–20, 55, 69, 76, 77, 78, 134, 251, 252–253, 436, 648, 831–832 and Boudinot, 758 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 761 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Clark, William, 775 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Handsome Lake, 815 and Harrison, William Henry, 819–820 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822

ABC-CLIO

I-21

and Indian removal, 83–84, 416, 935 and land cessions, 426–427 and Lewis, Meriwether, 846 and Louisiana Purchase, 653 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs, 252–253 and St. Clair, Arthur, 902 and St. Louis, 438 and Tippecanoe River, 440 treaties under, 262 and Vincennes, 442 Jemison, Alice Mae Lee, 832–833 Jennings, Jonathan, 299, 314, 315 Jerome, David H., 833–834. See also Jerome Commission Jerome Commission (Cherokee Commission), 271, 833. See also Jerome, David H. Jesup, Thomas S., 834–836 Jesus, 815 Jicarilla Apache, 25, 144, 268, 272 Jicarilla v. Andrus, 43 Jim, Chief, 338 Jimerson, Ray, 832 Job Corps, 114 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), 950 Joe, Chief, 338 John Chup-co (Long John), 362 John Hat (Tauromee), 365 John II, 49 Johnson, Andrew, 271 Johnson, Guy, 759, 836 Johnson, Lyndon, 35, 36, 114, 115, 173, 698 and Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 912 Johnson, Richard, 90 Johnson, Sir William, 69, 238, 282, 639, 641-642, 759, 823, 836 Johnson administration, 709 Johnson O’Malley Act, 709, 934 Johnson v. M’Intosh, 96, 165, 652, 656, 685–686, 919–920, 924–925, 953 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 948 Johnston, Jane, 894 Johnston, John, 330, 894, 914 Johnston, Joseph, 106 Joint Special Committee on the Conduct of the Indian Tribes, 270

1-800-368-6868

I-22

Index

Joint Special Committee to Inquire into the Condition of the Indian Tribes, 800. See also Doolittle Commission Jolliet, Louis, 430 Jolly, John, 315 Jondreau, William, 156 Jones, Chief Wilson, 135 Jones, Horatio, 290 Jones, John T., 352, 365 Jones, Thomas ap Catesby, 200, 231 table 4 Jones, William, 183, 186, 824 Jones v. Meehan, 42, 62 Joseph, Chief (Joseph the Younger; Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt; Thunder Rolling in the Mountains), 837 Joseph (Ronioness), 298 Joseph the Younger. See Joseph, Chief Jouett, Charles, 291 Journeycake, Solomon, 309 Joy, James F., 369 JTPA. See Job Training Partnership Act Judd, Gerrit P., 201, 202 Judge, Thomas L., 332 Judson, Wilfred, 215, 701, 702 Jumper, 316 Jurisdiction and colonial America, 162, 163 criminal, 31, 112, 172–173 issues of, 161–177 See also Sovereignty Ka-gway-dosh, 365 Ka-ta-ka. See Kataka Ka-zhe-cah, 365 Kaahna, 300 Kagama, 671 Kah milt-pah, 345 Kah-nung-da-tla-geh (Major Ridge), 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321, 322, 333, 430, 888, 909 Kahnawake, 217 Kaintwakon. See Cornplanter Kakawipilpathy, 286 Kakima, 437 Kalakaua, David, 203, 231 table 4, 232 Kalaniana’ole, Kuhio, 205–206 Kalapuya, 98, 225, 226, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Kalispel Reservation, 227 Kamaiakan, 409, 410 Kamehameha I, 229 Kamehameha II, 229 Kamehameha III, 229, 230, 231 table 4 Kamehameha IV, 202, 205, 230 Kamehameha V, 203, 230–231 Kanesatake (Lac-des-DeuxMontagnes), 638 Kansa (Cansa, Kanza), 104, 252, 414 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 1862, 352 Kansas, 29, 30 jurisdiction in, 166 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Kansas Indians Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, 1815, 296 Kansas Indians case, 166 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 936 Kansas Reservation, 351, 352 Kanza. See Kansa Kappler, Charles J., 101 Karaho, John, 365 Karok, 175 Kashaya Pomo, 9 Kaska Dena, 403 Kaskaskia, 79–80, 100 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442

ABC-CLIO

Kataka (Ka-ta-ka) Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Katewah, 301 Kathlamet, 229 table 1 Kativik Regional Government, 396, 397 Kaw (Kanza), 414 Kaw’s Widow (Mee-kiss), 325 Kearny, Stephen, 411, 769, 770 Keatechee, 291 Kechemaqua (Kechemaquaw), 300, 301 Kechewaishke (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Kee-o-kuck (the Watchful Fox), 328 Kee-way-gee-zhig (Returning Sky), 324 Keechy Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Keeocuck (Keokuk), 302, 364, 753, 754, 776, 807, 811 Keith, Charles B., 353 Kekionga, 443 Keneschoo, 766 Kennedy, John F., 698, 709, 738 Kennedy, Robert, 738 Kennedy administration, 173 Kennedy Report. See Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge Kennedy v. Becker, 151 Kennewick Man, 725–726 Kenote, George, 792 Kentucky, 28 Keokuk (Keeocuck), 302, 364, 753, 754, 776, 807, 811 Keweenaw Bay, 155 Kiasutha, 782 Kickapoo, 72, 73, 79, 100 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Kickapoo, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Kickapoo, August 30, 1819, 300 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 19,1820, 299–300

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermillion, September 5, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October 24, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Wabash River, 443 Kickapoo Reservation, 353 Kicking Bird (Watohkonk, Black Eagle; Ténéangopte, Tene-Angpote, Eagle Striking with Talons), 838, 850, 899 Kidd, Meredith H., 786 Kik-i-állus Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Kilkatat, 344–345 King Philip’s War. See Metacom’s War Kingdom of Hawaii, 207, 732–733. See also Hawaii Kingsbury, Cyrus, 417 Kinship relationship, 39 Kintpuash (Captain Jack), 767–768 Kinzie, John, 807 Kinzua Dam project, 44 Kiowa, 10, 30, 40, 43, 61, 100, 104, 110, 268–269, 270, 271, 677–678 and education, 182 and jurisdiction, 168–169 and reconstruction treaty, 106–107 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366, 550–552 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366

www.abc-clio.com

See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Reservation, 107, 110, 677 Kiowa-Comanche Reservation, 32, 107 Kisketuhug, 341 Kitchkume, Louise, 792 Kitsai, 268 Klallam, 154, 238 Klamath, 35, 104, 116, 139, 227, 230 table 2 and timber, 141 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., October 14, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency Plan, 141 Klamath Indian Reservation, 227 Klamath Reservation, 141, 227 Klamath Termination Act, 141, 694 Klamath Tribal Forest Management Plans, 141 Klatskania, 229 table 1 Klinquit, 345 Kluane, 727 Knox, Henry, 14–15, 19, 53, 73, 74, 261, 284, 287, 420, 744, 839–840, 903 and Indian removal, 83 Ko-Yate Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-ASi, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Kondiaronk (the Rat), 278 Konnack, 229 table 1 Konohiki (land managers), 228 Koo-tah-waun-nay, 319 Kootenai Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Kosciuszko, Tadeusz, 850 Kouns, Nathan, 314, 315 Kow-was-say-ee, 345 Kuleana grants, 201 Kutenai, 99, 227 Kwalin Dun, 727 La Barr, Governor, 236 La-da-ila, 895 La Famine, Treaty of, 236 La Ferine, 300 La Flesche, Francis, 179

ABC-CLIO

I-23

La Flesche, Joseph (E-sta-mah-za), 356 La-ma-noan (the Axe), 294 La-mee-pris-jeau (Sea Wolf), 294 La Nanette, 765 La Pointe, 341 La Trappe (Majigabo), 798 Labrador, 216 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, 938 Lac Court Orielles, 341 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 41, 156, 721–722 Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO), 157 Lac De Flambeau, 341 Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (Kanesatake), 638 Lac du Flambeau (LdF), 157 Lac-Saint-Jean, 638 LaDuke, Vincent, 840 LaDuke, Winona, 840–842 LaFlesche, Francis, 906 LaFlesche, Joseph (Iron Eye), 905–906 LaFlesche, Mary Gale, 905–906 LaFlesche, Susan, 906 LaFlesche, Suzette “Bright Eyes,” 830 Lafountain, F., 330 Lake of Two Mountains, 75 Lake Winnibigoshish Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Lakmiut Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Lakota Reservation, 107, 139 Lakota (Sioux), 101, 106, 166–167, 179, 705 and gold mining, 139–140 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 704–706 See also Sioux Lamberth, Royce, 955 Lambros, Nicholas J., 710–711 Lamer, Antonio, 728 Lamont, Lawrence “Buddy,” 705 Lamson, Chauncey, 848 Lamson, Nathan, 848

1-800-368-6868

I-24

Index

Lanape, 424. See also Delaware Land and eminent domain, 136 in exchange for land, 137 and natural resources, 136–137 as real property, 134–135 reservations as payment for, 137–138 and selling rights, 135 value of, 136–137 Land acquisition, 13, 14–18, 19–25, 76. See also Land cession Land and Water Settlement Acts, 116 Land cession, 14, 39 and Indian removal, 83–92 and Jefferson, Thomas, 426–427 See also Land acquisition Land claims in Alaska, 196–199 in Canada, 215–217 in Hawaii, 200–202 Land compensation, 14–15, 16, 17–18, 20, 21–22, 24, 42, 44, 101–102, 136 in Alaska, 195, 196–198 in Canada, 239, 240, 241 and confederate treaties, 103–104 in Hawaii, 200 lack of, 133–134 in Northern Plains, 255, 257 in the South, 77–78, 79 in southeast, 261 in southern plains and southwest, 269, 270, 272 and unratified treaties, 97, 98, 99 and U.S. Constitution, 75, 76, 136 See also Land cession; Land ownership; Land payments; under individual treaties; under individual treaty sites Land Grant College Act. See Morrill Act Land in Severalty Act. See General Allotment Act Land Ordinance, 27, 72 Land ownership, 24, 63, 133, 134 and allotments, 138 in Hawaii, 201–202 and Indian culture, 144 and religion, 144 and sovereignty, 135–136 See also Allotment; Natural resources; Removal; Reservations Land tenure, 8, 134, 135 Land title, 919 and doctrine of discovery, 924–925

www.abc-clio.com

See also Aboriginal title Lane, Barbara, 706 Lane, Joseph, 225, 229 table 1 Langtree, Samuel D., 55 Language barrier, 6, 10–11, 15, 135, 148 L’Anse, 341 Laplace, C. P. T., 200, 201 Lapwai, 230 table 2 Treaty of, 227 Laramie, Jacques, 422 Larrabee, Nellie, 784 Larsen, Lewis, 430 Las Casas, Bartolomé de, 50, 924 LaSalle, Robert Cavalier de, 437 Laskin, Bora, 702 Last-in-time rule, 43 Latopia, 286 Latrobe, John, 781 Laurens, Anna, 788 Laurens, Henry, 788 Law, 27 enforcement, 6, 8–9 See also Federal Indian law; Treaty law The Law of Nations (Vattel), 50, 945, 946 Lawrence, Kip, 409 Lawyer (Aleiya), 345, 374 Layauvois, 291 LCO. See Lac Courte Oreilles LCO v. Voigt, 249 LdF. See Lac du Flambeau Le Boeuf (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Le Petit Carbeau, 292 Lea, Luke, 760, 842–843 Leach, D. C., 355 League of Nations, 177 Lean Bear, 352 Leavenworth, Jesse, 269, 358, 367, 755 LeBlanc, Albert, 156, 710–711 Leclede, Pierre, 774 Lee, Arthur, 285 Lee, Robert E., 106, 869 LeFleur, Louis, 843 LeFlore, Chief Greenwood, 9, 86, 264, 843–844 Left Hand (Namos), 352 Legion army, 646 Legislation, 27 Lemoite, 775 Lenape, 163 Lenni Lenape (the Delaware), 13 Lepan Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332

ABC-CLIO

Leschi, Chief, 428, 896 Leupp, Francis, 182, 680, 824, 844–845 Levi, Francis Thomas, 742 Lewis, Andrew, 424 Lewis, Dixon W., 346 Lewis, M. G., 332 Lewis, Meriwether, 252, 415, 438, 775, 837, 845–847 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 See also Clark, William; Lewis and Clark Expedition; Louisiana Purchase Lewis, Reazen, 293 Lewis, Thomas, 424 Lewis, William, 845 Lewis and Clark expedition, 251, 252, 253, 255. See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether Li-ay-was, 345 Liguest, Pierre de LeClede, 439 Liliuokalani, Queen (Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominic), 204, 205, 232 Limited trust, 955. See also Trust Doctrine Lincoln, Abraham, 927 Lipan Apache, 268 Litigation, 39 Little Beard, 76 Little Beard’s Reservation, 290 Little Bighorn, Battle of, 256, 719 Little Billy, 287 Little Bluff (Dohasan), 850, 896 Little Chief (Ga-he-ga-zhinga), 356 Little Crow (Taoyateduta; His Red Nation), 441, 847–848 Little Decoria, 356 Little Hawk, 784 Little Hill, 356 Little Moon (We-che-gla-la), 303 Little Mountain, 838 Little Prince, 308 Little Raven, 351, 367 Little Robe, 367 Little Thunder, 900–901 Little Turtle (Michikinikwa), 73, 76, 290, 292, 293, 442, 443, 646, 849–850, 902, 913, 914 Little White Bear (Mato-che-gal-lah), 304 Little Wolf, 352, 801, 802 Littleman, Peter D., 334 Livingston, Robert, 69 Locke, John, 832 Logan, James, 332 Logan, William, 230 table 2

1-800-368-6868

Index Logging, 155 Lone Chief (A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he), 349, 356 Lone Wolf, Chief, 43, 61, 107, 110, 168–169, 677, 838, 850–851 Lone Wolf (A-Kei-Quodle), 677 Lone Wolf the Younger (Mamadayte), 851 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 10, 43, 44, 61, 63, 107, 109, 110–111, 138, 140, 168–169, 271, 677–678, 943, 954 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka), Chief, 360 Long John (John Chup-co), 362 Long Walk, 370–372, 412, 661–662 Longest Walk, 712–713 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 830, 894, 906 Longueuil, 238 Longwha Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Looking Cloud, Fritz Arlo, 744 Looking Glass, 410 Lord Dunsmore’s War, 245, 246 Lorette, 75 Lorimer, L., 293 Loughery, Ardavan S., 334 Louis XIV, 278 Louisiana, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Louisiana Cession, 55–56 Louisiana Purchase, 20, 21, 55, 77, 78, 84, 134, 137, 252, 262, 417, 653 and Indian removal, 935, 936 See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether Louisiana Territory, 427 compensation in, 80 treaties in, 80 Love, Benjamin S., 337 Love, Robert H., 362 Lower Brulé Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Lower Sioux Agency Indian Reservation, 441 Lowry, John, 296 Loyalty, 13 Lumbee Regional Development Association, 950

www.abc-clio.com

Lummi, 154 Lumpkin, Wilson, 22, 656 Lunalilo, King, 203, 231 Lurie, Nancy, 792 Lymans, Wyllys, 851 Lynch, Joseph M., 333 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 174–175, 947 Ma-ha-nin-ga (No Knife), 356 Ma-hos-kah (White Cloud), 302 Ma-laigne, Chief, 333 Macacanaw, 300 Macatewaket, 300 Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir), 292 Mackenzie, Ranald S., 851, 871 Mackenzie Valley Envikronmental Impact Review Board, 401 Madeira Islands, 49 Madison, Dolley, 870 Madison, James, 19, 80, 758 and Cass, Lewis, 771 and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and Clark, William, 776 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Wabash River, 444 Mah-hee, 352 Mah-ne-hah-nah (Great Walker), 302 Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), 304 Mahawaha, 671 Mahican (Mohegan, Mohican), 116, 243, 305 Main Poc, 439–440, 443 Maine, 75–76 Maine Implementing Act (MIA), 718 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), 247, 716–718 Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC), 718 Maison v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, 152 Majigabo (Great Speaker, or La Trappe), 798 Majoney, Patrick, 715–716 Major Crimes Act, 31, 60, 167, 670, 671, 714, 933, 948 Makaainana (Maka’ainana; commoners), 228 Makah, 99, 155, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Makah, July 20, 1815, 294–295 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, October 6, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Makah, January 31, 1855, 344

ABC-CLIO

I-25

Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 40 Makah v. Schoettler, 152 Makataimeshekiakiak (Black Hawk), 255, 752–754, 776, 798, 807, 810, 811 Makivik Corporation, 215 Malecite (Malisee), 70, 216 Maliseet (Malisee), 116, 211, 235, 236, 237 Maloney, Jake, 742–743 Malotte (DeMaillot), Keziah, 807 Malunthy, 286 Mamadayte (Guopahko; Lone Wolf the Younger), 851 Mamande (Screaming Above), 897 Mamanti, 838, 851 Man-ah-to-wah, 364 Man Who Interprets (Henry Chee Dodge), 798–799 Mandan, 24, 101, 106, 252, 253, 254 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Manifest Destiny, 251 Manitoba Act (Canada), 239, 664, 664–666 Manitoba Post Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 2 Manitoulin Island Treaty, 642 Mankiller, Wilma Pearl, 851–853 Mann, Luther, Jr., 354 Manpinsaba (Black Cloud), 294 Manuelito, 267, 370, 371, 412, 662, 853–854 Manypenny, George W., 24, 226, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 346, 347, 349, 761, 842 Maricopa, 272, 273 Market Revolution, 84 Markham, William, 873 Marquesas Islands, 200 Marquette, Jacques, 430 Marshall, Benjamin, 313 Marshall, Donald, 720 Marshall, John, 11, 22, 40, 56–57, 60, 81, 88, 136, 165–166, 184, 263, 639, 652, 653, 654, 655–656, 671, 692, 832, 920 and aboriginal title, 215 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 762 and doctrine of discovery, 924–925 and domestic dependent nation, 213, 925–926

1-800-368-6868

I-26

Index

Marshall, John (cont.) and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 212–213, 948 and treaties, 954 and Trust Doctrine, 955 Marshall, Thurgood, 112, 113, 703, 722 Marshall, William, 320 Marshall case. See R. v. Marshall Marshall decisions, 216 Marshall Trilogy, 166, 172 Martin, Brice, 333 Martin, Henry W., 364 Martin, Joseph, 286 Martin, Morgan L., 334 Martinez, Mariano, 334 Martland, Ronald, 701 Marufo, Anne, 861 Marvis, Thomas, 308 Mascouten, 278, 443 Masham, Sir William, 915 Mashantucket Pequot, 41, 116 Mashpee Wampanoag, 928, 942 Massachusetts, 30, 72, 75–76 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 179 Massacre Cave, 411 Massacres, 96 Massasoit (Ousa Mequin; Yellow Feather), 854–855, 858, 859 Master of Life, 647 Matacur, William, 309 Mather, Thomas, 304, 413 Matlock, G. C., 333 Mato-che-gal-lah (Little White Bear), 304 Matthew Grey Eyes, 312 Mattz v. Arnett, 45 Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, 324 Maulson, Tom, 157 Maw, George, 308 Mawedopenais, Chief, 377 May-zin (Checkered), 324 Mayhew family, 180 Mayo, 403–404 McArthur, Duncan, 295, 298 McClanahan decision, 42 McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 62, 113, 114, 702–703, 952 McCloud, Janet, 152 McCool, Daniel, 144 McCormick, Kelly Jean, 743 McCoy, Rev. Isaac, 22

www.abc-clio.com

McCoy, John L., 333 McCullough, John L., 421 McCurtain, Daniel, 302 McDonald, J. L., 302 McDonald, Peter, 912 McDougall, William, 665 McElvain, John, 309, 312 McGillivray, Alexander, 52, 260, 261, 287, 648, 649, 839, 855–856 McGilvery, William, 290, 291, 313 McGovern, Francis, 156 McIntosh, D. N., 363 McIntosh, J., 301 McIntosh, William, Jr., 79, 263, 292, 301, 302–303, 649, 810, 856–857, 865 McKay, James, 377 McKean, William K., 342 McKee, Redick, 228, 231 table 3, 660 McKenna, Joseph, 151, 678 McKenney, Thomas L., 307–308, 761, 886. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs McKennon, Archibald S., 786 McKenzie, Ann, 807 McKenzie, Richard, 690 McKinley, William, 232, 676, 824 and Hawaii, 205 McKinley Act, 204 McLachlin, Beverly, 218 McLamore, J., 291 McLaughlin, James, 899 McLean, John, 312 McLish, John, 327 McMinn, Joseph, 297 McNair, Alexander, 776 McNair, Clement V., 333 McNiel, John, 309 McQueen, Peter, 866 Mdewakanton (Medawah-Kanton, Medawakanton, Mendawakanton), 100, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 MDNR. See Michigan Department of Natural Resources Me-cos-ta, 323 Me-mot-way, 325 Me-no-ke-shick, 365 Meacham, Albert B., 31 Meadow Lake Tribal Council, 216 Means, Russell, 700, 704–706, 743, 747, 751, 857–858. See also

ABC-CLIO

American Indian Movement Meanymsecah, 286 Medawah-Kanton. See Mdewakanton Medawakanton. See Mdewakanton Medicine Creek, 230 table 2 treaty history of, 427–428 Treaty of, 61, 63, 99, 106–107, 110, 169, 226, 227, 271, 427–428, 695, 711 See also Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854 Medicine Lodge, Treaty of, 366–367, 677. See also Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867 Medill, William, 24, 334 Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow), 325 Mee-sée-qua-quilch Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Meeds, Lloyd, 712, 713 Meeker, Nathan C., 869 MEI. See Menominee Enterprises, Inc. Meigs, Return J., 291, 292 Memoranda of understanding, 5 Memorandum writers, 35 Menard, Pierre, 309 Mendawakanton. See Mdewakanton Meninock, Chief, 150 Menominee, Chief, 440 Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), 172 Menominee (Menominie), 23, 35, 45, 91–92, 116, 139, 278 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and termination, 172 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Menominee, March 30, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Menominee, February 8, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, February 17, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee, September 3, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Menominee, October 18, 1848, 333–334 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854, 339

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Menominee, February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Menominee Reservation, 112, 684, 695 Menominee Restoration Act, 36 Menominee Termination Act, 45 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 45, 693–695 Mentor-Protégé Program, 33 Meriam, Lewis, 33, 189, 679 Meriam Report, 33–34, 189, 679–680, 682, 923 Meriwether, David, 297, 301 Meriwether, James, 302 Meriwether, Lucy, 845 Merriam Report, 709. See also Assimilation Mes-quaw, 323 Mes-quaw-buck, 322 Mescalero, 25 Mess-Sett, 322 Metacom, 858–861, 916 Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War), 243, 244 Métis (Metis), 209, 214–215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 239, 240, 399, 401, 664–666, 720, 938–940 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 377 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21, 1899, 385–387 Canadian Indian Treaty 10, September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907, 390–391 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 Metlakatla, 196 Metosenyah, Thomas, 365 Mexican-American War, 28, 29, 57, 659, 660. See also Guadalupe, Treaty of Mexican Cession, 137 Mexican independence, 85 Mexico, 24, 28, 29, 100, 169, 254 and California, 228 and independence from Spain, 53 and Texas, 57 treaties with, 267, 268

www.abc-clio.com

Mi-Chop-Da Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 MIA. See Maine Implementing Act Miami, 16, 17, 20, 55, 72, 73, 79, 90–91, 100, 244, 245, 247, 278, 412, 444 and Fort Harrison, 421 and St. Joseph, 436 and St. Louis, 438 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Miami, October 6, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Miami, February 11, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Miami, November 6, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Miami, November 28, 1840, 330 Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Miantonomi (Miantonomo), 766, 767, 907 Micco, Hoboithle, 856 Michigamia Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Michigan, 28 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 156 Michikinikwa (Little Turtle), 443, 849–850

ABC-CLIO

I-27

Michilimackinac, Michigan treaty history of, 428–429 See also Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820; Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Micmac. See Mi’kmaq MICSA. See Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act Middle Oregon, 230 table 2 Treaty of, 149, 227, 415 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Middleton, Frederick, 803 Migration, westward, 84 Mijaw-ke-ke-shik, 365 Mikasuki Seminoles, 102–103 Mi’kmaq (Micmac), 51–52, 176, 211, 216, 235, 236, 237–238 Mikwendaagoziwag (They Will Not Be Forgotten), 433 Miles, John, 801 Miles, Nelson, 812–813, 901 Military draft, 169 and education, 188 Mille Lacs, 157 Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 11, 41, 42, 46, 62, 157, 158, 730–731, 954 Miller, Samuel, 60, 671 Milroy, Samuel, 330 Min-e-do-wob, 365 Min-tom-in, 325 Mineral resources, 31, 36 in Alaska, 198 See also Natural resources Mingatushka, 286 Mingo, 245 Mingo Pooscoos, 291 Miniconjou, 168 Treaty with the Sioux— Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Mining, 139–141. See also Natural resources Mining Law, 947 Minisink, 52, 282

1-800-368-6868

I-28

Index

Minitaree Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Minnesota, 23 jurisdiction in, 172 Minnesota Enabling Act, 730, 731 Mis-qua-dace, 355 Mishinemackinong, 428 Missionaries, 85 and education, 179, 180, 182–184, 185 See also Religion Missionary associations, 30 Mississauga, 239 Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394, 627–635 Mississippi and Indian removal, 86 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 353, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Mississippi River, 77 Mississippi Territory, 20 and Indian removal, 84 Missouri, 28, 100, 226, 252, 253 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340

www.abc-clio.com

Missouri v. Holland, 45 Missouria, 25 Mitchel, Colin, 656 Mitchel v. United States, 656–657 Mitchell, Chester, 788 Mitchell, D. D., 254, 336, 842 Mitchell, David Brydie, 298 Mitchell, George, 739, 746, 750. See also American Indian Movement Mitchell, John, 365 Mitchell, Mike, 720–721 Mitchell, Samuel, 290 Mitchell case, 720–721 MITSC. See Maine Indian TribalState Commission Miwok, 228 Mix, Charles E., 349, 350 Mixanno, 860 Mixed Seneca Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 M’Kee, John, 297 Mo-chu-no-zhi (Standing Bear), 829–830, 903–904, 905, 906 Mo-cuck-koosh, 329 Mo-less, 352 Mo-sack, Chief, 325 Mo-ta, Chief, 320 Modern treaties/comprehensive land claim agreements (Canada), 215, 216, 235, 236, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941 Modoc, 104, 227, 230 table 2 and timber, 141 Modoc War, 227 Mohawk, 51, 72–73, 75, 217, 236, 243, 244, 278 Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1797, 289 See also Six Nations Mohawk, William, 348 Mohegan. See Mahican Mohican. See Mahican Mojave, 272, 273 Molala (Molel), 225, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Molala, December 21, 1855, 348 Mole Lake, 157 Molel. See Molala Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), 294 Mongrain, 438 Monk, Justice, 663 Monopsony, 15

ABC-CLIO

Monroe, James, 19, 85, 262, 655 and Clark, William, 776 and Gadsden, James, 809 and Indian removal, 416, 935 and Indian Territory, 936 and Jackson, Andrew, 828 Monroe Doctrine, 203 Montagnais, 638 Montalban, Ricardo, 802 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 43 Montana v. United States, 63–64, 113, 174, 714 Montmagny, Governor, 236 Montour (Pauquia), 292 Montreal, Articles of Capitulation of, 637–638 Montreal, Treaty of, August 7, 1701, 235, 236, 244–245, 278–279 Montreal Conference, 236 Moore v. United States, 337 Moor’s Charity School, 180. See also Schools Moose Dung, Chief, 354 Mooshulatubbee. See Mushulatubbe Morgan, George, 246 Morgan, Colonel Jacob, 796, 799 Morgan, Lewis, 816 Morgan, Michael Oliver, 862 Morgan, Thomas J., 185, 186, 826 Morgan, Willoughby, 310 Morgan Report, 205 Morning Star (Dull Knife), 801–802 Morrill, Ashley C., 354, 355 Morrill Act (Land Grant College Act), 27, 29 Morris, Alexander, 377 Morris, Robert, 76, 289 Morris, Thomas, 886 Morrow, William, 392 Morse, Jedidiah, 745 Morton v. Mancari, 62, 708–709 Morton v. Ruiz, 43 Mose-so, 325 Moses, Chief, 385 Moshulatubbee. See Mooshulatubbee “Mother Earth,” 136 Mount Dexter, Treaty of, 20 Movable type, 49 Movie industry, 254 Muache, 272 Muahuache Ute, 272 Mucathaanamickee, 302 Muck Rose, 319, 322 Muckleshoot (Muckelshoot), 152, 154 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Muckuk Kosh, 330

1-800-368-6868

Index Mudeator, Matthew, 343 Munsee, 315 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Murphy, Thomas, 269, 358, 363, 364, 365 Murray, James, 238, 638 Muscogee Creek, 260, 261, 262, 419 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Muscogee Nation v. Hodel, 43 Museums, 125–126 Mush, John, 365 Mushulatubbe (Mooshulatubbee, Moshulatubbee), 86, 264, 302 Musquaconocah, 286 Mut-tut-tah, 364 Myer, Dillon S., 911 Na-al-ye, 342 Na-cho Nyak Dun. See Nacho Nyak Dun Na-hel-ta, 342 Na-maing-sa (the Fish), 294 Nacho Nyak Dun (Na-cho Nyak Dun) Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 403–404 Nader, Ralph, 738 Nag-ga-rash, 352 NAGPRA. See Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Nakota (Sioux) Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 See also Assiniboine; Sioux Namos (Left Hand), 352 Nananawtunu, 860 Nankanandee, 294 Nanticoke, 70, 282 Napoleon, 77, 427, 831 Narbona, Antonia, 267, 410–411 Narbona, Chief, 853

www.abc-clio.com

Narcesagata (the Hard Stone), 294 Narragansett, 116 Nas-waw-kee, 323 Nasa Reah, 301 Naskapi, 240 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398 Nascapi Development Corporation, 397 Nascapi Health and Social Services Consultative Committee, 397 National Advisory Council on Indian Education, 709–710 National Assembly of Quebec, 215 National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 35, 682, 792, 794, 934, 958 National Environmental Protection Act, 956 National Forest Service, 174–175 National Historic Preservation Act, 947 National Indian Board of Education, 709 National Indian Education Advisory Committee, 709 National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), 36, 121, 122, 723 National Indian Youth Council, 152 National Industrial Recovery Act, 34 National Museum of the American Indian Act, 118 National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), 733–734 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, 117–118 National Recovery Administration (NRA), 34 Nationalism, 185 Native Alaskans, 195–199 Native American Church, 173, 175 Native American Church v. Navajo Council, 173 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 118, 124–126, 175, 176, 725–726, 947. See also Sacred sites Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act, 116 Native American Programs Act, 929 Native American Rights Fund, 152, 942, 950

ABC-CLIO

I-29

Native Hawaiians, 199–207, 732–733 Native village, 198 Nativist Redstick Creek revolt, 262–263 Natural resources, 133–134, 134–135, 136–137, 144 in Alaska, 195–196 See also Gold; Mineral resources; Mining; Timber; Water Nau-tay-sah-pah, 324 Naush-waw-pi-tant, 322 Navajo, 18, 25, 30, 52, 62, 88, 100, 104, 107, 267, 268, 271, 272, 410–412, 691–692, 702–703, 714–715 and Fort Sumner, 425–426 and gaming, 176 and jurisdiction, 173, 174 and Long Walk, 661–662 Treaty with the Navajo, September, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, 370–372, 552–556 Navajo Reservation, 140, 170, 173, 267, 372, 686, 691–692 Navajo Tribal Code, 714 Navajo Tribal Council, 173 Naw-squi-base, 325 Nawb-bwitt, 325 Nay-gee-zhig (Driving Clouds), 323–324 NCAI. See National Congress of American Indians Ne-con-he-con, 351 Ne-ha-tho-clo, 316 Ne-o-mon-ni, 328 Ne-sour-quoit, 352 Neah Bay, 99, 226 Nebraska, 29, 30 jurisdiction in, 161, 172 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Nee-so-aw-quet, 320 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 114 Neolin, 879 Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf), 328 Nesmith, James W., 800 Nesowakee, 302 Nevada, 175 Nevada v. Hicks, 113 and government-to-government relationship, 930–931 and sovereignty, 948 New Brunswick, 216 New Course of Studies, 187 New Echota treaty history of, 429–430 Treaty of, 16, 23, 88–89, 137, 265, 320–322, 430, 653, 657, 658

1-800-368-6868

I-30

Index

New Echota (cont.) See also Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835 New France, 235 New Mexico Territory, 100 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 731 New Netherlands, 211 New Orleans, 77 New Orleans, Battle of, 85 New York, 23, 55, 75–76, 211 treaties of, 16, 52, 54, 89–90 Treaty of, 261 Treaty with the New York Indians, January 15, 1838, 329 New York Power Authority (NYPA), 688 New Zealand, 203 Newby, E. W. B., 267 Newlands Resolution, 205 Newman, Daniel, 301 Nez Perce (Nez Percé), 99, 104, 107, 137, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 and education, 182 Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, 1855, 345 Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, 1863, 353, 513–518 Treaty with the Nez Percé, August 13, 1868, 374 Nez Perce Reservation, 227 NFA. See Nisga’a Final Agreement Niagara Treaty of 1764, 639–640 Nichol, Alfred, 747 Nicholson, James, 355 Nicolas, Chief, 862 NIGC. See National Indian Gaming Commission Nigeria, 170 Nihinessicoe, 286 Nihipeewa, 286 Nihtat Gwich’in, 400 Nippising, 75 Nisenan, 228 Nisga’a, 215, 216, 241, 701–702 Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA), April 27, 1999, 406–407, 702, 727 Nisqually, 63, 99, 153, 154, 226, 695–696 and fishing rights, 152 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510

www.abc-clio.com

Nisqually River, 152 Nitakechi, 86 Nittuckachee, 302 Nixon, Richard, 35, 36, 115, 116, 172, 173, 689, 691, 709, 747 and Alaska, 197, 198 and Costo, Rupert, 783 and Deer, Ada E., 792 Message to Congress, July 8, 1970, 697–698 Nixon administration, 705, 740 NMAI. See National Museum of the American Indian No-heart, 352 No Knife (Ma-ha-nin-ga), 356 No Water, 784 Nocona, Peta, 871 Noe-Ma Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Noise (Wah-no-ke-ga), 356 Noisy Pawnee Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Nolo, 302 Non-che-ning-ga, 328 Non-Intercourse Act, 15, 212 Nonrecognized tribes, 928, 929, 941–942. See also Federally recognized tribes; State-recognized tribes Noo-whá-ha Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Nook-wa-cháh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Nordwall, Adam, 861 Norris, Thomas, 642 the North, removal treaties in, 89–92 North America, 51 North American Indian, 217 North Carolina, 21 North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs, 950 the Northeast, treaties in, 243–249 Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NQA), January 31, 1978, 397–398, 726 Northern Arapaho Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Northern Athapaskan, 400 Northern Cheyenne

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Northern Great Plains, treaties in, 251–257 Northern Ponca, 172, 173 Northern Quebec Inuit Association, 215, 395, 397 Northrop, Sarah Bird, 887 Northwest Angle Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 3, October 3, 1873 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 155 Northwest Mounted Police, 240 Northwest Ordinance, 27–28, 72, 420 Article III, 645 Northwest Territory, 19, 20, 215, 216, 665 compensation in, 80 treaties in, 79–81, 81 table Northwestern Shoshone Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 354 Northwestern Territory Order, 664 Nova Scotia, 216 NQA. See Northeastern Quebec Agreement N’Quentl-má-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 NRA. See National Recovery Administration NTI. See Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Numbered treaties, 236, 239–240 Nunavut, 177, 240 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, May 25, 1993, 401–403, 938 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 402 Nunavut Territory, 216 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), 403 Nunna daul Tsuny, 322 Nye, James W., 354 NYPA. See New York Power Authority O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush, 365 O-sho-ga, 760 Oakes, Richard, 690, 691, 861–862 Oakes, Yvonne, 862 Obail (Obeal), Henry, 815 Obwandiyag (Pontiac), 878–879

1-800-368-6868

Index Oche Haujo, 292 Ochechote, 345 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 730, 948 Odanak, 638 Odawa. See Ottawa Oe-quee-wee-sance, 329 OEO. See Office of Economic Opportunity O’Fallon, Benjamin, 253, 303, 304, 306 Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), 115, 116 Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), 206, 207, 732–733 Office of Indian Affairs (OIA), 151, 166, 167–168, 171, 426, 666, 731, 761 and Alaska, 195 authority of, 170 and education, 182 See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Lea, Luke; Parker, Ely S. The Office of Indian Affairs (Schmeckebier), 33 Office of Indian Education Programs, 190 Ogden, Abraham, 289 Ogden Land Company, 247 Ogima Kegido, 329, 330 Oglala Sioux, 106, 171, 255–257, 704, 705 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO), 705 Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, 704 OHA. See Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ohio, 19 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Ohio Indians, 426–427 Ohio Valley treaties in, 89 Ohnaweio (Goodstream), Chief, 289 OIA. See Office of Indian Affairs Oil, 140 in Alaska, 195, 196, 197 See also Natural resources Ojibwe (Ojibwa, Ojibway), 29, 148, 235, 238, 239, 248–249, 278, 412, 673–674, 721–722 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Fort Treaty), August 3, 1871, 375–376

www.abc-clio.com

Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba Post Treaty), August 21, 1871, 375–376 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 (Northwest Angle Treaty), October 3, 1873, 377 Canadian Indian Treaty 4 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), September 15, 1874, 378–380 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg Treaty), September 24, 1875, 380–381 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August 28, September 9, 1876, 381–382 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty), November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, 388–389 and fishing rights, 155, 156 and gathering rights, 158–159 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 431–432 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 335 Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850, 334–335, 495–498 and Sandy Lake, 433 Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), 363 Oklahoma, 28, 102, 140–141, 170, 937 and confederate treaties, 104 jurisdiction in, 168–169 See also Indian Territory Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 681 Olaya, Hugo, 851–852 Old Briton, 862–863 Old Crow, 404 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 404–405 Old Northwest, 19, 20, 22, 23, 55, 56 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 63, 113, 713–714, 715 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and sovereignty, 948 Olympia, Treaty of, 227 Omaha, 32, 100, 104, 226 and jurisdiction, 161 Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1854, 338–339

ABC-CLIO

I-31

Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 1865, 355–356 Omaha Reservation, 161 Omaha Tribal Council, 161 Omaha World-Herald, 161 One Bull, 897 the One that Has No Name (Cha-sawa-ne-che), 304 the One That Is Used as a Shielf (Wah-hah-chunk-i-ahpee), 358 the One Who Walks against the Others (J-a-pu), 303 Oneida, 13, 23, 53, 69, 76, 278, 305 and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, 1838, 329 See also Six Nations Onkpahpah. See Hunkapapa Onondaga, 51, 278. See also Six Nations Ontario, 213, 216 Ontonagon, 341 Oohulookee, 297 Oolitiskee, 297 Oowatata, 297 Oowatie, Buck. See Boudinot, Elias Opata, 410 Opechancanough, 863–864, 880 Operation Head Start, 114 Opitchapam, 863 Opothleholo, 313, 864–865 Oral agreements, 6 Oral cultures, 149 Oral promise, 10–11 Oral tradition, 135 “Order for Establishing Communication and Trade with the Esquimaux Savages on the Coast of Labrador,” 279 Oregon, 199–200, 225 jurisdiction in, 172 treaty of, 225 See also Pacific Northwest Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Indian Tribe, 45 Oregon Donation Act, 97 Oregon Game Commission, 152 Oregon Question, 28, 29 Oregon Territory, 57, 96–97 and unratified treaties, 97–99 See also Pacific Northwest Oregon Trail, 254

1-800-368-6868

I-32

Index

Organic Act, 195, 685, 686 Oriskany, Battle of, 641 Orme Dam, 136 Orrick, William, 154, 158, 707 Osage, 7, 18, 20, 21–22, 30, 104, 136, 252, 413–414 and confederate treaty, 104–105 and oil, 140 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Osage, November 10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Osage, September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Osage, September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Osage, August 21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Osage, September 19, 1865, 357 Osage Reservation, 140 Osaw Wauban, 330 Osceola, 804, 811, 866–867 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835 OSCRO. See Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization Oshaga, 341 Oshawwawno, Chief, 347 Oshkosh, 867–868 O’Sullivan, John Louis, 55 Oswegatchie, 75 Otermín, Antonio, 434 Otoe (Oto), 25, 30, 100, 226, 252, 253 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Ottawa (Odawa), 17, 51, 71, 72, 100, 104, 235, 278, 412 and fishing rights, 155, 156 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, 428–429 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Ourada, Patricia, 867 Ouray, 868–869 Ousa Mequin (Massasoit), 854–855 Outchequaka, 291 Overland Mail Route, 269 Oweneco, 907 Owl, 914 Pa (the Elk), 298 Paca Rinqua, 301 Pacakinqua, 300 Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, 155 Pacific Northwest, 24, 25 fishing rights in, 147–150, 150–155 gathering rights in, 147–150, 159 hunting rights in, 147–150, 150–155 treaties in, 225–228, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 See also Oregon Territory; Washington Territory Pacific Railroad Act, 29 Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, 41 Packs a Knife (Istowun-eh’pata), 785 Pacta sunt servanda, 50, 58 Pad-a-ga-he (Fire Chief), 356 Page, John, 362 Pah-sal-sa (Auicara), 304 Pah-Siss, 323 Paiute, 35, 106, 116, 230 table 2 Palliser, Sir Hugh, 279–280 Palmer, Joel, 149, 226, 227, 229 table 1, 230 table 2, 338, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 409–410 Palmer, Luther R., 365 Palouse, 344–345, 409–410 Pancoast, Henry, 826 Pani, 252 Panton, Leslie and Company, 17 Papago, 273 Papal authority, 49 Papal bulls, 50 Paris, Treaty of, 71, 137, 237, 245, 260, 279, 638, 645, 647, 649, 651, 954. See also Revolutionary War (U.S.) Parke, Benjamin, 296, 299, 300, 301 Parker, Arthur C. (Gawaso Wanneh), 816, 884, 886 Parker, Cynthia Ann, 871 Parker, Eli, 31 Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh, Donehogä’wa), 59, 184,

1-800-368-6868

Index 272, 349, 362, 363, 666, 816, 869–870 Parker, Quanah, 838, 870–872 Parker, William, 870 Parliament of Canada, 215 Parliament of United Kingdom, 214 PARR. See Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources Parris, Albion K., 333 Parrish, Jasper, 886 Parsons, Samuel H., 286 Partisan Discoverer (Sheterahiate), 298 Pasamaquoddy (Passamaquoddy), 70, 116, 211, 247 Pashepaho, 291 Passamaquoddy. See Pasamaquoddy Passamaquoddy v. Morton, 717 Patent Office, 29 Path Killer, 291 Patterson, J. P., 754 Patterson, John, 744 Pauktuutit, 938 Paulet, Lord George, 200, 201, 203 Paulette case (aka Caveat case), 392 Pauquia (Montour), 292 Paw-pee, 320 Paw-tisse, 319 Pawnee, 30, 41, 253, 269 and education, 182 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, September 30, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9, 1833, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Treaty with the Pawnee, September 24, 1857, 349 Pawnee Loup, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Pawnee Marhar, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Pawnee Republic Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298

www.abc-clio.com

Pawnee Republican, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Payne’s Landing, Treaty of, 264, 653, 935 Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, 352 Peace, 13, 19, 40 Peace, Treaty of, 55, 56 Peace and Amity, Treaty of, 268 Peace and friendship treaties, 95, 641–642 in Canada, 210–212 Peace Commission, 25, 58–59, 271 Peace Policy, 30 and education, 184–185, 189 Peacock, 323 Pearl Harbor, 203, 232 Peigan (Piegan), 101, 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Pelecheah, 300, 301 Pem-ach-wung, Chief, 352 Pembina Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Penayseewabee, 330 Pend d’Oreille, 99, 227 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Penn, Margareet, 873 Penn, William, 276, 872–874 Penn, William, Sr., 873 Penobscot, 70, 116, 211, 247 Pensacola, Treaty of, 52 Pension Office, 29 People of the Caribou. See Gwich’in People v. Chosa, 155–156 People v. LeBlanc, 156, 710–711 Peoria, 100 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365

ABC-CLIO

I-33

Peoria, Baptiste, 365 Pepper, Abel C., 322, 323, 324, 325, 329, 437 Pepys, Samuel, 873 Pequot War, 245 Peralta, Pedro de, 434 Perry, James, 327 Petaheick (Good Chief), 298 Peters, Richard, 282, 765–766 Peters, Zeba T., 334 Petroleum leases, 43 Peyote, 173, 175 Phagen, Major, 316 Phelps, Oliver, 290 Philippines, 202 Phillips, Ellis, 333 Phillips, William A., 419 Piankashaw (Piankeshaw), 16, 72, 79 Agreement with the Piankeshaw, January 3, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Piankashaw, December 30, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Pickens, Andrew, 286, 290 Pickens, Edmund, 337, 346, 362 Pickering, Timothy, 74, 75, 287, 289 Pickering Treaty, 287 Picolata, Treaty of, 656 Picotte, Charles F., 349 Pictou, Mary Ellen, 742 Piegan. See Peigan Pierce, Franklin, 809, 927 Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, 702 Pike, Albert, 103, 418, 737, 781, 874–876, 891 Pike, Zebulon M., 292 Pilcher, Joshua, 325, 328

1-800-368-6868

I-34

Index

Pillager Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Pima, 272, 273 Pina Quahah (Washakie), 373–374, 907–909 Pine Ridge Reservation, 36, 168, 171, 704 Pine Tree Treaty, 91 Piomingo, 286 the Pipe, 424 Pipe, Captain, 309 Pipe, Eli, 309 Pipeline, trans-Alaska, 197 Pishake, 341 Pisquouse, 344–345 Pitchlynn, John, 876 Pitchlynn, Peter (Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee; Snapping Turtle), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Pito-kanow-apiwin (Poundmaker), 785 Plains Apache, 677–678. See also Apache Plains Cree, 240, 382. See also Cree Plains Indians and Fort Laramie, 422, 423 Plains Ojibwa, 382. See also Ojibwa Plaisted, William, 717 Plan of 1764, 282 Plan of Union, 954 Plenary power, 28, 36, 43–44, 109, 114, 118, 120, 126–127, 169, 671, 677–678, 942–943 and government-to-government relationship, 930, 931 and trust responsibility, 957 the Plum (Po-ko-mah), 328 Plymouth Company, 76 Po-ko-mah (the Plum), 328 Pocahontas, 863–864, 879 Pohlik Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Poinsett, Joel R., 328 Point Elliott, 226, 230 table 2 treaty at, 99

www.abc-clio.com

Point No Point Treaty, 149, 226, 230 table 2 Pokagon, Leopold. See Pokagun Pokagun (Leopold Pokagon; Sakekwinik), 318, 413, 877–878 Police force, Indian, 59 Political structure, 135 Polk, James K., 770, 870 Pomo, 53, 228 Ponca, 104 Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 1865, 356 Pontiac, 435, 437, 640 Pontiac (Obwandiyag), 878–879 Pontiac’s Rebellion, 281–282 Pontiac’s Revolt, 245 Pontiac’s War of 1763, 639 Pontotoc, Treaty of, 264 Poor Bear, 367 Pope, John, 25 Port Madison Reservation, 713 Port Orford, 229 table 1 Porter, George B., 315, 316 Portugal, 49 Posey, Thomas, 298 Postage Stamp Province, 665 Potawatomi, 20, 23, 30, 51, 72, 79, 90, 235, 244, 247, 248, 278, 412–413, 444 and Fort Harrison, 421 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 and St. Joseph, 436–437 and St. Louis, 438 and Tippecanoe River, 439–441 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 16, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1828, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 20, 1832, 313–314 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 26, 1832, 314–315 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 10, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 16, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 17, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 24, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 26, 1836, 322 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, April 11, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, April 22, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, August 5, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1836, 324–325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 23, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, June 5 and 17, 1846, 332–333 Treaty with the Potawatomi, November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 27, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 and Vincennes, 442 Potlatch, 668 Poundmaker (Pito-kanow-apiwin), 785 Poverty, 117 in Alaska, 199 Powell, Ludwell E., 333 Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), 235, 863–864, 879–880 Powles, Henry, 329 Powley, Roddy, 720 Powley, Steve, 720, 940 Pownall, Thomas, 823 Prairie du Chien treaty history of, 430–432 Treaty of, 430–431 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825 Pratt, John G., 363 Pratt, Richard Henry, 179, 185–186, 189, 851, 880–882. See also Carlisle Indian School Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada), 641–642 Pre-Dorset, 937 Preemption rights, 21, 23 Preloznik, Joseph, 792 Price, H., 385 Prince Edward Island, 211, 216 Prior appropriation system, 143, 144–145 Priority date, and water rights, 143 Prisoner return, 14 Private ownership. See Land ownership The Problem of Indian Administration, 189, 679. See also Meriam Report “Proclamation to Bring About Friendly Intercourse with Esquimaux Indians,” 279 Proctor, Henry, 649

www.abc-clio.com

Progressive education movement, 189 the Prophet. See Shawnee Prophet Prophetstown, 427, 440, 443–444, 646–647 Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources (PARR), 157, 722 Provencher, J. A. N., 377 Prucha, Francis Paul, 21, 190 Prudhoe Bay, 195, 197 Public Law 83-280, 111–112 Public Law 99-398, 141 Public Law 103-150 Public Law 280, 35, 120, 172–173, 175, 684–685, 686, 948, 952–953. See also Termination Public Law 726. See Indian Claims Commission Act Public schools, 189–190. See also Schools Pueblo, 24, 29, 41, 116, 162, 272, 410 and jurisdiction, 169 and Santa Fe, 433–434 and water rights, 143 Puffing Eyes (Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha), 358 Puget Sound, 150, 152, 153, 154, 427–428 Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos, 153 Pushee Paho, 301 Pushmataha, 882–883 Putnam, Rufus, 745 Puyallup, 63, 99, 226 and fishing rights, 152–154 and jurisdiction, 173 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Puyallup River, 152 Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977, 173, 711–712 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968, 45, 153, 695–696, 711 Puyallup Trilogy, 153 Pye, Abram, 334 Quakerism, 184, 872–874 Quapaw, 104, 268, 417, 439 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, 1818, 298

ABC-CLIO

I-35

Treaty with the Quapaw, November 15, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Qu’Appelle Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 4, September 15, 1874 Quash Quammee (Quashquame), 291, 302 Quash-quaw, 323 Quashquame. See Quash Quammee Quatie, 891 Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day), 355, 365 Quebec, 211, 215, 216 Quebec Agreement, 236 Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), 215, 395, 397 The Queen v. Drybones, 688 Queets, 99 Qui-nai-elt (Quinaielt) Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Qui-we-shen-shish, 365 Quil-leh-ute. See Quileute Quil-si-eton, 342 Quileute (Quil-leh-ute), 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Quillequeoqua, 229 table 1 Quinaielt. See Qui-nai-elt Quinalt. See Quinault Quinault (Quinalt), 99, 152, 154, 226–227, 230 table 2 Quinney, Augustin E., 334 Quixiachigiate, 334 Quotequeskee, 291 R. v. Côté, 642 R. v. Gladstone, 728, 729 R. v. Marshall, 641, 720 R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., 728 R. v. Sioui, 638, 641 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 728–729 Racer (Ronaess), 298 Racism, 85, 187 Rafeedie, Edward, 159 Railroads, 96 Ramah Navajo Chapter, 43 Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 114 Ramsey, Alexander, 354, 433, 848

1-800-368-6868

I-36

Index

Rancherias, 24 Rapids of the Miami, 21 Rarnleshare (Chief Man), 298 the Rat (Kondiaronk), 278 Rattling Blanket Woman, 784 Rawlins, John, 870 Rawson, Rawson W., 745 Ray, James Brown, 307 RCMP. See Royal Canadian Mounted Police Reagan, Ronald, 723 Reciprocity, Treaty of, 231 table 4, 232 Reconstruction, 30, 105–107, 202, 937. See also U.S. Civil War Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 Red Bear, Chief, 354 Red Bird War of 1827, 653 Red Cloud, Chief, 107, 256, 719, 883–884 Red Fort, 302 Red Jacket (Sagoyewatha), 75, 76, 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, 814, 815, 869–870, 884–886 Red Lake Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Red Lake Reservation, 112, 684 Red Plume, Chief, 253–254 Red Power, 691, 953 Red Tipi, 892 Reed, Henry W., 358, 359, 360, 364 Reed Stanley, 685 Reeves, Benjamin, 304, 413 Regina v. Bernard, 219 Regina v. Marshall, 218–219 Regina v. Powley, 216 Regina v. White and Bob, 219, 642 Regional corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Rehnquist, William, 45, 719 Religion, 173, 174–175 and education, 179–182 in Hawaii, 200 and land ownership, 144 See also Missionaries Relocation, 8, 24, 35, 172, 689–690 and Alaska, 195

www.abc-clio.com

See also Indian removal Removal. See Indian removal Rencontre, Zephyr, 349 Reorganization, 170–171 Reorganization Act, 682 Repatriation, 175, 176 Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 921 Republican Party, 29 Reservation system, 29, 95–96, 97, 327, 341, 699, 931–932 in Alaska, 198, 199 See also Reservations Reservation(s), 8, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31–32, 95–96, 236 in Alaska, 195–197, 198–199 definition of, 133 and jurisdiction, 172–173 as payment for lands, 137–138 police, 168 See also Executive Order Reservations; General Allotment Act; individual reservations; Reservation system Reserved rights, 40, 62, 133, 155, 156 regulation of, 147–150 See also Fishing rights; Gathering rights; Hunting rights Reserved Rights Doctrine, 138, 143–145, 151, 686, 695, 943–944 Reserves, 95. See also Reservations Resolution of 1871, 166 Restoration, 138–139 Restoration Acts, 116 Returning Sky (Kee-way-gee-zhig), 324 Revenue sharing agreements, 6 Revolutionary War (U.S.), 6, 11, 13–14, 27, 55, 137, 163, 245, 246, 261, 645, 647, 649 and Canada, 212–214 and Royal Proclamation of 1763, 639 treaties during, 18–19, 69–70, 259–260 and treaties of alliance, 11 See also Paris, Treaty of Reynolds, John, 313, 798 Rhea, John, 297 Rice, Harold “Freddy,” 732 Rice, Henry M., 333, 353 Rice v. Cayetano, 207, 732–733 Richardson, John, 885 Richardville, John B., 330 Richardville, Thomas, 365

ABC-CLIO

Riddle, Frank, 768 Ridge, John Rollin (Chees-quat-alaw-ny; Yellow Bird), 886–887 Ridge, John (Skah-tle-loh-skee), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 430, 758, 887, 888, 909 Ridge, Major (Kah-nung-da-tla-geh), 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321, 322, 333, 430, 887, 888, 909 Ridge, Walter, 888 Riel, Louis, 665, 785, 803, 889–890, 939–940 Right of conquest, 15, 96, 100, 652, 944–945, 946, 957 Right of occupancy/right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657, 685, 945–946 Right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657, 685, 945–946 Riley, James, 362 Ritchie, Roland, 701 Rituals, 39, 254–255 River People (Columbia River Indians), 150–152, 155, 227, 414–416 Robertson, James, 291, 292 Robinson, Alexander, 319, 413 Robinson, William Benjamin, 334–335 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850, 214, 239, 335, 435, 642 Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850, 214, 239, 334–335, 435, 642 treaty document, 495–498 Roche de Boeuf Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Rock-a-to-wha, 351 Roe Cloud, Henry, 189 Roe-nu-nas, 312 Rogers, John, 308, 316 Rogue River, 99, 226, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes, September 8, 1853, 338 Treaty of, 97–98

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, November 15, 1854, 342 Roland, Gilbert, 802 Ronaess (Racer), 298 Ronesass (Honas), 298 Ronioness (Joseph), 298 Roosevelt, Franklin, 34, 170, 189, 934 and Collier, John, 780, 923 Roosevelt, Theodore, 778, 824, 872 and Geronimo, 813 and Harjo, Chitto, 818 Rosebud Reservation, 139 Ross, Alexander, 414 Ross, Edmund G., 800 Ross, John, Chief, 16, 88–89, 263, 296, 299, 320, 321, 322, 333, 363, 654, 758, 870, 887, 890–891, 910 Ross, William W., 352 Round Valley Reservation, 661 Rowland, Bill, 802 Roy, Francis, 349 Roy v. United States, 337 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), 939 Royal Charter of 1670, 715 Royal Proclamation of 1763, 69, 211, 212, 213, 235, 236, 239, 281, 282, 375, 403, 404, 638–640, 642, 674, 702 Runaways, and education, 186–187 Rupert’s Land, 664, 665, 715 Russell, William, 421 Russia, 229, 685, 698 and Alaska, 195 and treaty negotiation, 53 Rusty (Mon-sai-raa), 294 Ryan, James, 710–711 Ryan, W. Carson, Jr., 189 Sa-cher-i-ton, 342 Sa-heh-wamish. See Sahewamish Sa-ka-pa (son of Quash-qua-mi), 328 Saa-Hajo (Davy), 313 Saalequun, 238 Saanich, 238 Sac. See Sauk Sacred objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726. See also Sacred sites Sacred sites, 174, 946–947. See also Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Sacred objects

www.abc-clio.com

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 117 Saginaw Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Sagoyewatha (Red Jacket), 75, 76, 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, 814, 815, 869–870, 884–886 Sah-ku-méhu Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sahaptin (Sahaptian), 227, 414–415 Sahewamish (Sa-heh-wamish), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Sahtu Dene, 240, 392, 400 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, September 6, 1993, 405–406 See also Dene Sai-Nell Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-KiAs, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Sakekwinik (Leopold Pokagun), 318, 413, 877–878 Salmonscam, 154 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Saluskin, Noah James, 159 Sam, Chief, 338 Sam-áhmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Samoa, 199 San Carlos Apache, 116 San Carlos Reservation, 268 San Luis Rey Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 Sanborn, John, 256, 269, 271, 358, 366, 367, 369, 370 Sand Creek Massacre, 104, 106, 271 site return, 733 See also Chivington, John Milton Sanderson, Electa Allen, 787, 788 Sandoval, Chief, 267

ABC-CLIO

I-37

Sands (Ok-tars-sars-harjov), 363 Sandusky Seneca treaty, 248 Sandy Lake treaty history of, 433 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842 Sans Arcs Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 809 Santa Fe treaty history of, 433–434 See also Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 Santee Dakota Reservation, 175 Santee Sioux, 32 and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Santee war, 104 Santiam Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Santiam Molala, 229 table 1 Sapier, Noel, 742 Sar-cox-ie, 351 Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), 236, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Sargeant, John, 744 Sasr-sarp-kin, 385 Sassacus, 907 Satank (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, 896–897 Satanta (Set’ainte, Settainti; White Bear), 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Satiacum, Robert, 152, 707 Sau-tabe-say, 324 Sauk (Sac), 17, 30, 72, 100, 103, 244, 278, 412 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and St. Louis, 438–439 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, 296

1-800-368-6868

I-38

Index

Sauk (Sac) (cont.) Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291, 456–459 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan and Ontario) treaty history of, 434–436 See also Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty), September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty), September 7, 1850; Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842; Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855 Saulteaux, 238 Saw-wur-bon, 329

www.abc-clio.com

SCAN. See Student Council of American Natives Scar Face (Washakie), 373–374, 907–909 Scarfaced Charley, 768 Schermerhorn, John, 315, 316, 321 Schmeckebier, Laurence F., 33 Schmitz, Darld, 704 Schonchin John, Chief, 768 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 323, 329, 429, 771, 893–894 Schools, 25, 179–190, 270. See also Boarding schools; Carlisle Indian School; Education; Public schools Schuyler, Philip, 640 Schweabe, 895 Scoton, 98, 99, 230 table 2, 342 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Scott, Duncan Campbell, 796 Scott, Thomas, 889, 890, 939, 940 Scott, Winfield, 89, 313, 321–322, 657, 798, 891 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 811 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835, 836 Scott’s River Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Scoutash, 298 Screaming Above (Mamande), 897 SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Act Se-ap-cat, 345 Se-se-ah-kee, 352 Sea Wolf (La-mee-pris-jeau), 294 Seath’tl (Seattle), 63, 894–896 Seaton, Fred, 911 Seattle (Seath’tl), 63, 894–896 Sechelt Indian Band SelfGovernment Act, 726 Second Great Awakening, 181 Second Riel Rebellion, 939–940 Second Seminole War, 88, 165, 264, 653 Segui, Bernard, 302 Segulliak, 279 Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 115 Self-determination, 8, 35–36, 36, 127, 173, 174, 691, 697–698, 709–710, 734, 932 in Alaska, 198 and statutes, 114–116 vs. dependency, 144

ABC-CLIO

Self-Government Agreements (Canada), 726–727 Selkirk, 403 Selkirk, Earl of, 238 Selkirt treaty, 238 Selling rights, 135 Sells, Elijah, 357, 362, 363 Seminole, 7, 23, 30, 32, 419 and addenda treaty, 102–103 and confederate treaty, 103–104 and gaming, 175, 176 and purchase of Hard Rock Café, 735 Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and removal, 87–88, 264 and termination, 172 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, 1832, 313, 478–480 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, 1866, 362, 522–527 See also Five Civilized Tribes Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 123 Seminole War of 1817—1818, 653 Senate Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, 197 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 127 Senate Committee on Public Lands, 134 Seneca, 21, 23, 44, 72, 76, 100, 104, 236, 243, 244, 247, 248, 278 Agreement with the Seneca, September 15, 1797, 289 Agreement with the Seneca, September 3, 1823, 302 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, 1842, 330

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Seneca— Tonawand Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 See also Six Nations Seneca Nation v. U.S., 44 Seneca Reservation, 329 Seneca Steel, 312 Sensenbrenner, Frank, 157 Sequasson, 767 Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 174 Sergeant, John, 654 Service Monographs of the United States Government, 33–34 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), 27, 34 Sesquaressura, Chief, 282 Set’ainte, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Setangya (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, 896–897 Settainti, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Settlement illegal, 16–17 Indian, 19, 25 non-Indian, 13, 15, 24, 25, 110 Seven Fires of Canada, 238 Seven Major Crimes Act, 59 Seven Nations of Canada, 75–76, 236, 238 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289 Seven Years’ War. See French and Indian War Seventh Cavalry, 271 Severalty Act. General Allotment Act Seward, William, 202, 870 Sganyadí:yoh (Handsome Lake), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Sha-da-na-ge (Yellow Smoke), 356 Sha-ho-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Shanks, Isaac, 349 Shannon, Peter C., 385

www.abc-clio.com

Shasta (Chasta), 98, 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Shave-Head, 351 Shaw-gwok-skuk, 325 Shawano, 335 Shawnee, 21, 25, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 79, 100, 104, 244, 245, 246, 268, 282, 444 and jurisdiction, 166 and St. Louis, 438 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Shawnee, January 31, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Shawnee, November 7, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 and Vincennes, 442 Shawnee Prophet (the Prophet; Tenskwatawa, Tensquatawa), 80, 84, 245, 247, 421, 427, 439–440, 442, 443–444, 646, 647, 648, 649, 904, 905 Shawun Epenaysee, 330

ABC-CLIO

I-39

She-aw-ke-pee, 323 Shebbeare, John, 766 Sheegunageezhig, 330 Sheheke, Chief, 847 Shelby, Isaac, 299 Sheridan, Phil, 898 Sherman, Roger, 69 Sherman, William Tecumseh, 106, 267, 271, 369, 370, 373, 686, 749 and Satanta, 892, 893 and Sitting Bear, 897 Shernakitare (First in the War Party), 298 Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer), 298 Shi-a-wa (John Solomon), 312 Shinguakouce (pseud. Augustin Bart), 335 Shipley, David, 799 Ships, 49 Sho-e-mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we-wahca-to-we (the Wolf with the High Back), Chief, 303 Shob-osk-kunk, 365 S’Homamais. See Squaxin Shon-kah-we-to-ko (the Fool Dog), 359 Short Stay (Aanti), 897 Shoshone-Bannock, 107, 150 Shoshone (Shoshnee), 101, 104, 106, 107, 227–228, 252, 253 and jurisdiction, 175 Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Goship, October 12, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374, 556–559 Shoshone v. U.S., 44 Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, 329 Shu-kah-bi (Heavy Clouds), 349 Shubenaccadie, 237 Shyik, 345 Si-Yan-Te Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc., March 1851, 231 table 3 Sibley, George C., 304, 413

1-800-368-6868

I-40

Index

Sibley, H. H., 358, 359, 360 Sibley, Henry, 848 Sibley, Solomon, 301 Sichangu Lakota, 166 Siksika (Blackfeet), 383 Siletz Reservation, 226 Silver Brooch, 367 Silver mining, 31, 139. See also Natural resources Simtustus, 148 Sioune Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Sioux, 24, 25, 39, 51, 64, 91–92, 101, 104, 107, 236, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255–257, 271, 719, 722–723 and addenda treaty, 103 agreement with, 31 Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes, October 17, 1822, to January 3, 1883, 385 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Amended Agreement with the Certain Sioux Indians, March 2, 1873, 376–377 and education, 179 and Fort Laramie, 423 and jurisdiction, 168 and Prairie du Chien, 431 and reorganization, 171 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux, September 23, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Sioux, September 10, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30, 1836, 325

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sioux, September 29, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858, 350 Treaty with the Sioux— Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–360 Treaty with the Sioux—TwoKettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux— Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 See also Dakota; Lakota; Nakota Sioux Reservation, 32, 256 Sioux Valley First Nation, 216 SIPI. See Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Sis-see-yaw, 319

ABC-CLIO

Sisseton Sioux, 100 agreement with, 102 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Sitting Bear (Satank, Setangya), 367, 892, 896–897 Sitting Bull, 719, 784, 785, 897–899, 901 Sitting in the Saddle (Tauankia), 851 The Six Books of the Commonwealth (Bodin), 49 Six Nations, 15, 19, 51, 52, 55, 70, 72, 73, 74–75, 644 and Revolutionary War, 163–164 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768, 281–283 Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784, 285 Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794, 287–288, 454–456 See also Cayuga; Iroquois; Mohawk; Oneida; Onondaga; Seneca; Tuscarora Six Nations Reserve, 239 Sk-táh-le-jum Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sk-táhlmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Skágit Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Skah-tle-loh-skee (John Ridge), 88, 89, 265, 321, 322, 333, 430, 758, 887, 888, 909 Skai-wha-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343

1-800-368-6868

Index Skaniadario (Handsome Lake), 75, 76, 289, 649, 814–816 Skannowa, John, 149 Skimmy (Eskiminzin), 805–806 Skin-cheesh, 325 Skin-pah, 345 SKINS. See Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations S’Klallam Treaty with the S’Klallam, January 26, 1855, 343 Skokomish, 154 Skope-áhmish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sky, George, 349 Sladen, Joseph, 778 Slavery, 29–30, 103 Slikatat, 344–345 Smalh-kamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Small Cloud Spicer, 312 Smallpox, 253, 270. See also European diseases Smith, Daniel, 291, 292 Smith, Edmund Kirby, 106 Smith, Edward P., 921 Smith, Frederick, 282 Smith, Henry, 895, 896 Smith, James, 363, 376 Smith, John, 880 Smith, McKee A., 696 Smoking of the pipe, 255 Snake, 101, 252, 357 Treaty with the Snake, August 12, 1865, 356–357 Snapping Turtle (Peter Pitchlynn), 105, 346, 418, 876–877 Snoquálmoo Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Snow, George C., 365 Snyder Act, 709 Soap, Charlie, 852 Soda Springs treaty, 228 Sohappy, David, Sr., 149, 152, 154, 415, 696–697, 899–900 Sohappy, Richard, 696–697 Sohappy/Oregon ruling, 696–697 Sohappy v. Smith, 153, 696–697 Sokoki Abenaki, 75 Solomon, John (Shi-a-wa), 312 Songhees, 238 Sooke, 238 Sos’heowa, 816

www.abc-clio.com

Sounsosee, Lewis, 339 Sour Much, 291 Souter, David, 723 the South Indian removal in, 86–89 treaties in, 77–79 South America, 51 South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 46, 931 South Slave Métis Tribal Council, 216 Southeast, treaties in, 259–265 Southern plains, treaties in, 267–273 Southwest, treaties in, 267–273 Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), 190 Sovereignty, 212–213, 947–948 in Alaska, 199 in Canada, 177 and European aggression, 162–163 French, 49 and government-to-government relationship, 930 in Hawaii, 203, 207 and land ownership, 135–136 and treaties, signing of, 162–163 tribal, 5, 8, 39, 40, 112–114 See also Jurisdiction Spain, 6, 13, 28, 49, 56, 212–213 and California, 228 and Florida, 20, 77, 79, 85 and Hawaii, 229 and Mexico, 53 and Pueblos, 162 treaties with, 267, 268 and treaty negotiation, 50, 52 Speaker (Aampahaa), 294 Special Message on Indian Affairs (Nixon), 115 Specific Claims Branch, 949 Specific claims (Canada), 216, 235, 236, 948–950 Specific Claims Resolution Act Bill C-6, 949–950 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs (Jefferson), 252–253 Spence, Wishart, 702 Spencer, Ambrose, 330 Spencer Academy, 418 Spicer, George, 365 Spo-tee, 325 Spoils system, 272 Spokane Reservation, 227 Spotted Tail, 166–167, 179, 669, 900–901 Spring, Jesse, 349

ABC-CLIO

I-41

Spring Frog, 297 Squanto (Tisquantum), 854 Squatters, 17 Squawskin. See Squaxin Squaxin Island, 154 Squaxin (S’Homamais, Squawskin, Squaxon), 99 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Squaxon. See Squaxin Squiaitl (Squi-aitl), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Squin-áh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 673–674, 702 St. Clair, Arthur, 73–74, 245, 286, 420, 644, 745, 839, 849, 902–903, 913 St. Croix, 157 St. Francis, 75 St. John, 237 St. Joseph (Michigan) treaty history of, 436–437 See also Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833; Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827; Treaty with the Potawatome, September 20, 1828 St. Louis (Missouri) treaty history of, 437–439 Treaty of, 295, 296 See also Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804 St. Regis, 75, 638 St. Regis Reservation, 75 St-káh-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 STA-W. See Stop Treaty AbuseWisconsin Stambaugh, Samuel C., 311 Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi), 829–830, 903–904, 905, 906

1-800-368-6868

I-42

Index

Standing Buffalo (Tah-ton-ga-nuzzhe), 349, 356 Standing Hawk (Gra-ta-mah-zhe), 356 Standing Holy, 899 Stanley, H. M., 367 Stanwix, General, 424 Stapler, Mary Brian, 891 State of Michigan v. William Jondreau, 156 State of Washington v. Miller, 159 State-recognized tribes, 950–951. See also Federally recognized tribes; Nonrecognized tribes State v. Alexis, 151 State v. Keezer, 158 State v. Missionaries, 655 State v. Morrin, 249 State v. Towessnute, 151 State v. Wallahee, 151 Statehood, in Alaska, 195, 196 States, and treaty making, 14 States’ rights, and Indian removal, 85–86 Statute of Westminster, 51, 214 Statutes, 27, 49, 109–112, 126–127 ambiguity in, 41–43 and self-determination, 114–116 and tribal rights, 112–114 See also Treaties; individual statutes Steck, M., 354 Steele, James, 269, 358 Stehchass, 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Steilacoom, 99 and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Stephenson, Benjamin, 300 Stevens, Isaac, 25, 42, 149, 226–227, 230 table 2, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 409–410, 895 and Medicine Creek, 427, 428 Stevens, Justice John, 711 Stevens, John L., 204, 205 Stevens, John (Passamaquoddy leader), 717 Stevens treaty, 137 Stewart, Potter, 714 Stockbridge, 315

www.abc-clio.com

and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, November 24, 1848, 334 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Stoke Commission, 936 Stokes, Montfort, 315, 316, 320, 327, 936 Sto:lo, 728 Stoluck-whá-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Stone, Ely, 870 Stone, William Leete, 885, 886 Stone Fort Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 1 Stoney, 383 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet Treaty), September 22, December 4, 1877, 382–385 Stop Gill Netting, 156 Stop Treaty Abuse, 157, 722 Storm, 351 Story, Joseph, 946 Straits Salish, 147 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 113 Street, Eliza M., 332 Strong Walker (Gish-tah-wah-gu), 349, 356 Stuart, John, 69, 282 Stuart, Robert, 331 Student Council of American Natives (SCAN), 690 Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations (SKINS), 690 Suárez, Francisco, 50 Sublette, William, 422 Subsistence rights, 147–150 Sugar industry, in Hawaii, 201–202, 203, 204, 206 Sullivan, General, 288 Sullivan, John, 641 Sumner, Charles, 788 Sumner, E. V., 337 Sun dance, 668 the Sun Fish (Au-ni-mo-ni), 328 Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293

ABC-CLIO

Supremacy clause (of the Constitution), 28, 64, 154, 943, 951–952 Suquamish (Suquámish), 16, 63, 99, 713–714, 715 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Surplus lands, 32, 33, 96–97 Survival of American Indians Association, 152 Susquehannas, 243 Sutter, John, 228, 660 Swamp, Adam, 329 Swampy Cree, 375–376, 380–381, 382. See also Cree Swan Creek Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Swan (Wa-pan-gia), 294 Swayne, Noah, 667 Sweden, 162 Sweet Medicine, 754 Swegatchy, Treaty of, 641–642 Swim v. Bergland, 42, 43 Swimmer, Ross O., 852 Swin-á-mish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Sykes, Thomas B., 351 Symbolic goods, 135 Ta-su (White Cow), 356 Ta-ton-ca-pa (Buffalo Head), Chief, 303 Ta-wa-ka-ro (Tah-wa-carro) Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Taa’-wonyas (Awl Breaker), 814 Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the Yukon, 727 Tabequache (Tabaquache, Tabeguache), 272 Treaty with the Utah— Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354 Table Rock Reservation, 98 Taches Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Taghee, 372, 374

1-800-368-6868

Index Tagustiskee, 291 Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), 304 Tah-ra-kee, 352 Tah-ro-hon, 328 Tah-ton-ga-nuz-zhe (Tah-tungahnushi; Standing Buffalo), 349, 356 Tah-tungah-nushi. See Tah-ton-ganuz-zhe Tah-wa-carro. See Ta-wa-ka-ro Tah-wah-gah-ha (Village Maker), 356 Tahiti, 200 Tahquohee, 430 Takelma, 225, 229 table 1, 230 table 2 Takings, and treaty law, 44 Talapuche, 52, 53 Taliaferro, Lawrence, 325, 776 Talking Warrior, 302 Tall Bull, 367, 755 Talton v. Mayes, 715 Tamarois Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, 159 Tan-roo-mee, 343 Tan-tan-ka-has-ka (Long Bull), 360 Taoyateduta (Little Crow), 847–848 Tapeeksin (T’Peek-sin), 99 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343, 507–510 Tappan, Lewis, 267 Tappan, Samuel F., 271, 366, 367, 369, 370, 749, 773 Tappaye Pawnee, 319 Taruntne (Between the Logs), 298 Tashtasick, 766 Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), 294 Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), 294 Tauankia (Sitting in the Saddle), 851 Tauromee (John Hat), 365 Tawakoni, 104, 268 Tax revenues, 6, 88 Taylor, E. E. L., 362 Taylor, Edward B., 357, 358, 359, 360 Taylor, Frank, 150, 151 Taylor, Nathaniel G., 30, 106, 230 table 2, 271, 366, 367, 368, 369, 373, 374 Taylor, Richard, 296, 333 Taylor, Zachary, 23, 91, 231 table 4, 324, 421, 433, 730–731, 760, 842

www.abc-clio.com

and Cass, Lewis, 772 and Ojibwe, 341 Te-shaw-gen, 323 Tearekatacaush (the Brave), 298 Technology, 49 Tecumcena (Tecumsena), 300, 301 Tecumseh, 19, 56, 80, 84, 245, 247, 427, 435, 439–440, 442, 443, 444, 645, 649, 650, 790, 849, 850, 904–905 and Aupaumut, 745 and Harrison, William Henry, 820 and Pushmataha, 882 and Thames, Battle of, 647–649 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, 646–647 Tecumsena. See Tecumcena Tee-Hit-Ton, 44 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 44, 173, 657, 685–686, 719 Teetl’it Gwich’in (Tetlit Gwitchin), 400, 403, 404 Tegaya, Chief, 282 Teharagwanegen (Thomas Williams), Chief, 289 Teller, H. M., 385 Teller, James H., 385 Tellico Dam, 174 Ten Bears, 367 Ten Eyck, Anthony, 201 Tene-Angpote. See Kicking Bird Ténéangopte. See Kicking Bird Tenetendi (Eagle Heart), 897 Tenino, 148 Tenskwatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Tensquatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Termination, 8, 24, 34–35, 36, 61, 111–112, 114–115, 116, 119–120, 133, 138–139, 171–172, 173, 189, 196, 197, 198, 682, 683–684, 686–687, 689, 694, 952–953 in Alaska, 196, 198 and Nixon, Richard, 697 See also Deer, Ada E.; House Concurrent Resolution 108; Public Law 280 Termination Act, 141, 694 Termination Resolution, 35 Terry, Alfred, 106, 271, 366, 367, 369, 370, 898 Tesson, Joseph, 352 Tetawiouche (Wearer of Shoes), 298 Tetlit Gwitchin. See Teetl’it Gwich’in Teton Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, 294

ABC-CLIO

I-43

Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Texas, 57, 268 Texas Indian Commission, 950 Texas Republic, 28 Texon Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Teyanhasire, Chief, 282 TFN. See Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut Thadahwahnyeh, 884 Thames, Battle of the, 80, 647–649, 650 Themue, 302 They Are Afraid of Her, 784 They Will Not Be Forgotten (Mikwendaagoziwag), 433 Theyanoguin. See Hendrick Thom, Mel, 152 Thomas, Chief Jacob, 816 Thomas, Clarence, 723 Thomas, Rev. Eleazar, 768 Thompson, Clark W., 353, 355, 356 Thompson, Smith, 40, 57 Thompson, Wiley, 804, 811 Three Fires Confederacy, 235, 236 Three Fires People, 435 Thule, 937 Thunder Rolling in the Mountains. See Joseph, Chief Thur-o-mony, 352 Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes; Inshta Theamba), 905–906 Tibbles, Thomas H., 830, 906 Tigua, 41 Tilghman, James, 282 Tillamook, 97, 229 table 1 Timber rights, 43, 45, 141–142, 157. See also Natural resources Timothy, Chief, 374 Tippecanoe, Battle of, 444, 646–647, 649 Tippecanoe River (Indiana) treaty history of, 439–441 See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809 Tipton, John, 307, 308, 440 Tisquantum (Squanto), 854 Title IX Indian Education, 709 Tiyanoga. See Hendrick Tli Cho, 400 Tlicho (Dogrib; Tli Cho), 727 Tlingit, 44, 196, 198, 685–686 To-hee, 352

1-800-368-6868

I-44

Index

To-I sa’s Brother (We-we-sah), 324–325 Tohono O’odham, 116 Tohopeka. See Horseshoe Bend, Battle of Tolluntuskie, 291 Tolmie, William Fraser, 894–895 Tolowa, 175 Tomack Micco, 313 Tonaskat, 385 Tonawanda Treaty with the Seneca— Tonawanda Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Tonawonda Reservation, 349 Tonkawa, 57, 104 Toochalar, 297 Topinbee, 437, 877 Tordesilla, Treaty of, 49 T’Peek-sin. See Tapeeksin Trade, 15, 17, 27–28, 49, 55, 76–77, 251–252, 253 and Hawaii, 203, 204, 232 See also Fur trade Trade and Intercourse Act, 74, 75–76, 77, 109, 247, 251, 261, 643, 717, 922. See also Annuities Trade debts, 20 Trade routes, 6 Traders, Indian debt to, 20 Trading posts, 76–77 Trail of Broken Treaties, 700–701, 704, 712 Trail of Death, 248 Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 184, 213, 265, 653, 657–658, 661, 936 Trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 Transcontinental railway, 25 Transfer Act, 35 Trapping rights, 41 Traverse des Sioux treaty history of, 441 Treaty of, 255, 441 See also Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewankanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851; Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851 Treaties, 13, 953–954 in colonial America, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137 with competing factions, 11 definition of, 5, 49, 133 and education, 180–181, 182–183, 190 1800—1829, 76-81

www.abc-clio.com

establishment and conduct of Indian relations through, 15–18 force and effect of, 11 between Indian nations, 272–273 as international agreements, 49–64 interpretation of, 149 legacy of, 12 as negotiation process, 10–11. See also Treaty negotiation non-Indian opposition to, 25–26 objectives of, 13, 18–25 permanent language in, 11 policy goals of, 76–81 post-1871, 5–6 post-Civil War, 7 pre-1871, 5 pre-War of 1812, 136 during Revolutionary War (U.S.), 18–19, 69–70, 259–260 and rules of interpretation, 135 signing of, 162–163, 255 in the twentieth century, 61–64 under U.S. Constitution, 73-76 See also Addenda treaties; Confederate treaties; individual treaties listed by location or tribe; Reconstruction treaties; Statutes; Unratified treaties Treaty Commission, 58 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, November 1768, 281–283. See also Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty documents, 10–11. See also individual documents Treaty law abrogation and, 44–46 and canons of construction, 41–43 and plenary power, 43–44. See also Plenary power and statute ambiguity, 41–43 and takings, 44 and treaty rights, 39–41 Treaty making end of, 5, 7, 8, 25–26, 41, 58–61, 95, 109 local, 8–9 past and present traditions of, 6–9 post-1960, 8 state, 8–9, 14

ABC-CLIO

and tribal leaders, 9 tribal perspectives on, 9–10 Treaty negotiation, 6, 8, 10–11, 14 authority, 10, 25 in colonial America, 53–58 in Europe, 50–53 fraudulent, 40 methods of, 15–16 stages in, 254–255 Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Treaty of Albany with Iroquois Confederacy and British Crown, September 24, 1664, 211 Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations, July 31, 1684, 275–277 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation. See Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Treaty of Treaty of Big Tree. See Big Tree, Treaty of Treaty of Bois Fort. See Bois Fort, Treaty of Treaty of Buffalo Creek. See Buffalo Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Canandaigua. See Canandaigua, Treaty of Treaty of Carey Mission. See Carey Mission, Treaty of Treaty of Caribou Creek. See Caribou Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Chicago. See Chicago, Treaty of Treaty of The Dalles. See The Dalles, Treaty of Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. See Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Doak’s Stand. See Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty of Doaksville. See Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty of Forks of the Wabash. See Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Adams. See Fort Adams, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Bridger. See Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Finney. See Fort Finney, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Harmar. See Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Jackson. See Fort Jackson, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Laramie. See Fort Laramie, Treaty of

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc., September 17, 1851, 336–337. See also Fort Laramie, Treaty of Treaty of Fort McIntosh. See Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Pitt. See Fort Pitt, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Stanwix. See Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Wayne. See Fort Wayne, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Wise. See Fort Wise, Treaty of Treaty of Franklin. See Franklin, Treaty of Treaty of Ghent. See Ghent, Treaty of Treaty of Grandpré. See Grandpré, Treaty of Treaty of Greenville. See Greenville, Treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of Treaty of Hard Labor. See Hard Labor, Treaty of Treaty of Hartford. See Hartford, Treaty of Treaty of Holston. See Holston, Treaty of Treaty of Hopewell. See Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty of Indian Springs. See Indian Springs, Treaty of Treaty of La Famine. See La Famine, Treaty of Treaty of Lapwai. See Lapwai, Treaty of Treaty of Medicine Creek. See Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty of Medicine Lodge. See Medicine Lodge, Treaty of Treaty of Middle Oregon. See Middle Oregon, Treaty of Treaty of Montreal, August 7, 1701, 278–279. See also Montreal, Treaty of Treaty of Mount Dexter. See Mount Dexter, Treaty of Treaty of New Echota. See New Echota, Treaty of Treaty of New York. See New York, Treaty of Treaty of Olympia. See Olympia, Treaty of Treaty of Paris. See Paris, Treaty of

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty of Payne’s Landing. See Payne’s Landing, Treaty of Treaty of Peace. See Peace, Treaty of Treaty of Peace and Amity. See Peace and Amity, Treaty of Treaty of Pensacola. See Pensacola, Treaty of Treaty of Picolata. See Picolata, Treaty of Treaty of Pontotoc. See Pontotoc, Treaty of Treaty of Prairie du Chien. See Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty of Reciprocity. See Reciprocity, Treaty of Treaty of Rogue River. See Rogue River, Treaty of Treaty of St. Louis. See St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty of Tordesilla. See Tordesilla, Treaty of Treaty of Traverse des Sioux. See Traverse des Sioux, Treaty of Treaty of Trois Rivières. See Trois Rivières, Treaty of Treaty of Utrecht. See Utrecht, Treaty of Treaty of Versailles. See Versailles, Treaty of Treaty of Washington. See Washington, Treaty of Treaty of Washington City. See Washington City, Treaty of Treaty of Westphalia. See Westphalia, Treaty of Treaty Party, 23, 88–89, 321, 322 Treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135 Treaty rights, 39–41 interpretation of, 39, 40–43 Treaty sites, 409–444. See also individual treaty sites Treaty substitutes, 27, 133 Treaty Tree, 427 Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, October 17, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Appalachicola, October 11, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne, February 18, 1861, 351–352

ABC-CLIO

I-45

Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July 18, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Blackfeet, October 17, 1855, 347–348 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, October 19, 1865, 358–359, 358–360 Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Cherokee, November 28, 1785, 285–286 treaty document, 451–453 See also Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, 287. See also Holston, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26, 1794, 287. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2, 1798, 289 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 24, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Cherokee, October 25, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Cherokee, September 14, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Cherokee, February 27, 1819, 299 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 Treaty with the Cherokee, December 29, 1835, 320–322 treaty document, 483–491 See also New Echota, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, 363 treaty document, 542–550 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27, 1868, 368–369 Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July 6, 1825, 303

1-800-368-6868

I-46

Index

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 14, 1865, 357–358 treaty document, 518–522 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, October 28, 1867, 366–367. See also Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 24, 1801, 289–290 Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Chickasaw, September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 19, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Chickasaw, August 31, 1830, 310 treaty document, 464–468 Treaty with the Chickasaw, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, 1852, 337 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 treaty document, 491–493 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 treaty document, 493–495 Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 26, 1833, 317–319. See also Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Chippewa, January 14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Chippewa, December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 7, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Chippewa, October 4, 1842, 331

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, August 2, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Chippewa, September 30, 1854, 340–341 treaty document, 502–507 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 347 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July 16, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, Pilager, and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands, May 7, 1864, 353 Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River, October 18, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi, March 19, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, December 17, 1801, 290 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, 1803, 291 Treaty with the Choctaw, November 16, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 24, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Choctaw, October 18, 1820, 301. See also Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1825, 302

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Choctaw, September 27, 1830, 310–311 treaty document, 468–476 See also Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, January 17, 1837, 327. See also Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, November 4, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, June 22, 1855, 345–346 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 362 treaty document, 527–538 Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-Woz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, July 27, 1853, 338 treaty document, 500–502 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa, October 18, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Creek, August 7, 1790, 287 Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796, 289 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Creek, October 27, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Creek, August 9, 1814, 294 Treaty with the Creek, January 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Creek, January 8, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Creek, February 12, 1825, 302–303 Treaty with the Creek, January 24, 1826, 306 Treaty with the Creek, November 15, 1827, 307–308 Treaty with the Creek, March 24, 1832, 312–313 treaty document, 476–478

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Creek, February 14, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Creek, November 23, 1838, 329–330 Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August 7, 1856, 348–349 Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, 362–363 treaty document, 538–542 Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August 4, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-MaDo, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Delaware, September 17, 1778, 283–284 treaty document, 449–450 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, 1860, 351 Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1866, 363 Treaty with the Diegunio, January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, September 18, 1823, 302

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Fox, September 14, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, December 1849, 231 table 4, 232 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., April 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, 1815, 296 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Kickapoo, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermillion, September 5, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October 24, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, 1854, 340

ABC-CLIO

I-47

Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche, October 21, 1867, 365–366 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, October 21, 1867, 366 treaty document, 550–552 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., October 14, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A-Si, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Makah, July 20, 1815, 294–295 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, October 6, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Makah, January 31, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July 30, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Menominee, March 30, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Menominee, February 8, 1831, 311 Treaty with the Menominee, October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee, September 3, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Menominee, October 18, 1848, 333–334 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Menominee, February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, EsKun, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Miami, October 6, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Miami, February 11, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Miami, October 23, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Miami, November 6, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Miami, November 28, 1840, 330

1-800-368-6868

I-48

Index

Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, 340 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1797, 289 Treaty with the Molala, December 21, 1855, 348 Treaty with the Navajo, September, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, 370–372 treaty document, 552–556 Treaty with the New York Indians, January 15, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, 1855, 345 Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, 1863, 353 treaty document, 513–518 Treaty with the Nez Percé, August 13, 1868, 374 Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., December 26, 1854, 342–343 treaty document, 507–510 See also Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho, May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1854, 338–339 Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 1865, 355–356 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, 1838, 329 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, November 15, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Osage, November 10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Osage, September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Osage, September 25, 1818, 299

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Osage, August 21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, August 10, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Osage, September 19, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes, September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, September 21, 1833, 316–317 Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, March 15, 1854, 338 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and Missouri, December 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 6, 1820, 300 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 29, 1821, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836, 322–323 Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, July 31, 1855, 346–347 Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 1862, 352 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, September 30, 1825, 306

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9, 1833, 319 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., August 6, 1848, 333 Treaty with the Pawnee, September 24, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Piankashaw, December 30, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Klamath, etc., October 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 1865, 356 Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 16, 1826, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 19, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1828, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 20, 1832, 313–314 Treaty with the Potawatomi, October 26, 1832, 314–315 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 10, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 16, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, December 17, 1834, 320 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 26, 1836, 322 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Potawatomi, August 5, 1836, 324

1-800-368-6868

Index Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 20, 1836, 324–325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, June 5 and 17, 1846, 332–333 Treaty with the Potawatomi, November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 29, 1866, 362 Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 27, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Quapaw, November 15, 1824, 302 Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, November 15, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki-As, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 3, 1804, 291 treaty document, 456–459 See also St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 3, 1822, 301–302 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 21, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, September 27, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 11, 1842, 331–332 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, May 18, 1854, 339–340

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October 1, 1859, 350–351 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, February 18, 1867, 364 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, 1832, 313 treaty document, 478–480 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, 1866, 362 treaty document, 522–527 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 1802, 290 Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, December 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, 1842, 330 Treaty with the Seneca—Tonawand Band, November 5, 1857, 349 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 289. See also Canadian Indian Treaties 1-11 Treaty with the Shawnee, January 31, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Shawnee, November 7, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, 1831, 312 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., October 26, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Northwestern Bands, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, October 1, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Shoshone— Goship, October 12, 1863, 354 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock, July 3, 1868, 372–374

ABC-CLIO

I-49

treaty document, 556–559 See also Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc., March 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Sioux, September 23, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s River, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305 treaty document, 459–463 See also Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty with the Sioux, September 10, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sioux, September 29, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858, 350 Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou Band, October 10, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé Band, October 14, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band, October 20, 1865, 359 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs Band, October 20, 1865, 359

1-800-368-6868

I-50

Index

Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784, 285. See also Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty with the Six Nations, January 9, 1789, 286. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Six Nations, November 11, 1794, 287–288 treaty document, 454–456 See also Canandaigua, Treaty of Treaty with the S’Klallam, January 26, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Snake, August 12, 1865, 356–357 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, November 24, 1848, 334 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, September 3, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee, February 5, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Shasta, and Scott’s River, November 1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Utah—Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354

www.abc-clio.com

Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, 368 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Wea, August 11, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Winnebago, August 1, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Winnebago, September 15, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Winnebago, November 1, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Winnebago, October 13, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Winnebago, February 27, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Winnebago, March 8, 1865, 356 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285. See also Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286. See also Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289. See also Greenville, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, September 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 19, 1832, 312 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, 1842, 330

ABC-CLIO

Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1, 1850, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 31, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Yakama, June 9, 1855, 344–345 treaty document, 510–513 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Trent, William, 424 Tribal administration of federation programs, 116–117 Tribal governments, 35, 36 post-1960, 8 Tribal leaders and treaty making, 9 U.S. appointment of, 10 Tribal rights, 46 and statutes, 112–114 Tribal Self-Governance Act, 116 Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act, 116 Tribble, Fred, 156, 721 Tribble, Mike, 156, 721 Trist, Nicholas Philip, 659 Trois Rivières, Treaty of, 236 Tromelin, Legoarant de, 202 Trondek Hwech’in, 403, 404 Truman, Harry S, 682 Trust Doctrine, 954–955 Trust land, 113, 138, 197, 956–957. See also Land; Land acquisition; Land cession; Land compensation Trust relationship and government-togovernment relationship, 930 Trust responsibility, 103, 173, 671, 727, 732, 733, 926, 950, 955, 957–958 Tse-kauwtl, 344 Tsiigehtchic, 392, 400 Tsimshian, 196 Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee), 383 Tualatim Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Tuchebatche Micco, 313 Tuchebatcheehadgo, 313 Tuckenehau Chapco, 292 Tulalip, 152, 154 Tulee v. Washington, 62, 151, 152, 695–696

1-800-368-6868

Index Tulio, 291 Tundra Times, 196 Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN), 402 Tureen, Thomas N., 717, 942 Tuscarora, 44, 53, 69, 688–689 and education, 180 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., December 2, 1794, 288–289 See also Six Nations Tustunnuggee Hopoie, 301 Tutchone, 403 Tutelo, 282 Twana, 99 Twenty Points, 700–701 Two-Kettle (Two Kettle) Treaty with the Sioux—TwoKettle Band, October 19, 1865, 358 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Two Row Wampum, 211 Two Strike, 901 Tygh, 148 Tyler, John, 229 Uc-quaw-ho-ko, 364 Udall, Stewart, 35, 196 UELs. See United Empire Loyalists Uintah, 272 Uintah Indian Reservation, 933 Umatilla, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Umatilla Reservation, 151–152, 159, 697 Umbrella Final Agreement, 403, 404, 405 Umpqua, 98, 99, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., November 18, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, September 19, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, November 29, 1854, 342 Umpqua-Cow Creek, 226 Unassociated funerary objects, 124, 125, 126. See also Sacred sites Uncas, 767, 906–907 Underground Railroad, 271

www.abc-clio.com

United Anishnabeg Council, 216 United Empire Loyalists (UELS), 212, 213 United Kingdom, 229 United Kingdom Parliament, 214 United Nations, 687 United Native Americans, 691 United State v. Wheeler, 943 United States and reciprocity with Hawaii, 202–203 United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 173 United States v. Bourland, 723 United States v. Creek Nation, 681–682 United States v. Dion, 109, 174, 722–723 United States v. Joseph, 434 United States v. Kagama, 167, 671 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and sovereignty, 948 and trust doctrine, 955 and trust responsibility, 957 United States v. Lara, 114 United States v. Libby, McNeill and Libby, 196 United States v. Michigan, 63, 429 United States v. Mitchell and trust doctrine, 955 United States v. Navajo Nation and trust doctrine, 955 United States v. Oregon, 696–697 United States v. Sandoval, 169, 434 United States v. Sioux Nation, 257, 719 United States v. Sosseur, 173 United States v. State of Michigan, 711 United States v. Washington. See Boldt Decision United States v. Wheeler, 62, 63, 114, 714–715 United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 955 United States v. Winans, 170, 695, 944, 954 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 687 Unratified treaties, 97–101. See also Treaties Unrecognized tribes. See Nonrecognized tribes Upper Canada, 235–236, 239 Upper Midwest fishing rights in, 155–158 hunting rights in, 155–158 Uranium, 140. See also Natural resources U.S. Bill of Rights, 36

ABC-CLIO

I-51

U.S. Cavalry, 168 U.S. Civil War, 7, 11, 25, 29–30, 41, 58, 270, 271, 412 and Doaksville, 418 and education, 184 and Fort Gibson, 419 and Indian Territory, 937 treaties during, 269 See also Confederate treaties; Reconstruction treaties U.S. Claims Commission, 18 U.S. Congress, 8, 27, 28, 29, 95–96 and jurisdiction, 169 plenary power of, 109, 126–127. See also Plenary power See also Statutes; U.S. House of Representatives; U.S. Senate U.S. Constitution, 14–15, 22, 27, 36, 44, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 213, 644 commerce clause, 14, 28, 40, 43, 642–643, 666 and education, 190 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and Indian removal, 83 and jurisdiction, 163, 169 and land compensation, 136 and religious freedom, 175 supremacy clause, 28, 64, 154 and treaties, 73–76, 953 and treaty ratification, 135 and treaty rights, 39–40 See also Commerce clause; Supremacy clause U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 U.S. Department of Commerce, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Defense, 33, 167 U.S. Department of Education, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Game and Fish (DGF), 158 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 942, 950 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 116 U.S. Department of Justice, 59, 144, 150, 151, 152–153, 942, 950 and Hawaii, 207 U.S. Department of Labor, 942, 950 U.S. Department of State, 55, 95, 167, 203

1-800-368-6868

I-52

Index

U.S. Department of the Interior, 29, 30, 34, 54, 95, 120–121, 138, 140, 145, 270, 684, 717, 722, 926 and Alaska, 195, 196–197, 198 and federal recognition, 176 and Hawaii, 207 and trust land, 956 and trust responsibility, 958 and Wounded Knee, occupation of, 705 See also Cohen, Felix S. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 136, 198, 323 U.S. Department of Transportation, 206 U.S. Department of War, 30, 54, 73, 88, 270, 709, 719 and Committee on Indian Affairs, 653 and education, 182 and reservations, 95 U.S. Forest Service, 159 U.S. government and internal tribal matters, involvement in, 8 U.S. House of Representatives, 5, 18, 26, 31, 59 U.S. Indian Office, 270 U.S. Indian Peace Commission. See Great Peace Commission U.S. Public Health Service, 35 U.S. Senate, 5, 59, 73 and treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135, 231 table 4 U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 205 U.S. Supreme Court, 22, 34, 60, 96, 213 and congressional power, 109, 126–127 and jurisdiction, 34 and rules of treaty interpretation, 135 and treaty rights, 40 and tribal sovereignty, 112–114 and water rights, 143 See also individual court cases U.S. v. Cherokee Tobacco. See Cherokee Tobacco case U.S. v. Dion, 45 U.S. v. 4,450,72 Acres of Land, 158–159 U.S. v. Frank Taylor, 150 U.S. v. Joseph, 272 U.S. v. Kagama, 39, 44, 60–61, 61 U.S. v. McBratney, 43 U.S. v. Michigan, 156 U.S. v. Oregon, 153, 155

www.abc-clio.com

U.S. v. Sandoval, 272 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 45 U.S. V. Shoshone Tribe, 62 U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 44 U.S. v. Washington, 41, 45, 153, 154, 155, 159 U.S. v. Winans, 40, 42, 44, 150–151 Usufructuary rights, 41 Utah Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 1849, 334 Treaty with the Utah— Tabegauche Band, October 7, 1863, 354 Ute, 104, 107, 272, 410, 411 Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, 368 Ute Commission, 31 Ute Reservation, 31 Utrecht, Treaty of, 237 Valentine, Robert G., 182 Vallejo, Mariano, 228 Vallier, S. G., 365 Van Buren, Martin, 90, 91, 321–322, 772, 835 and Trail of Tears, 657 Van der Peet, Dorothy, 728, 729 Vancouver, George, 895 Vancouver Island treaties, 641, 642 Vanderslice, Daniel, 352 Vann, Clement N., 738 Vann, David, 333 Vann, James, 291, 888 Vann Tavern, 429, 430 Vashon, George, 309 Venetie Decision. See Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t Verelst, John, 823 Vermont, 28, 75–76 Verplank, Isaac A., 333 Versailles, Treaty of, 211 Veterans, Indian, 138–139 Victoria, Queen, 229, 785 Vieux De Sert, 341 Village corporations, in Alaska, 198–199 Village Maker (Tah-wah-gah-ha), 356 Vincennes, Le Sieur de, 442 Vincennes (Indiana) treaty history of, 441–443 See also Treaty with the Delaware, August 18, 1804; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803; Treaty with the

ABC-CLIO

Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805; Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August 27, 1804; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Vincennes Tract, 442 VISTA. See Volunteers in Service to America Voigt, Lester, 156 Voigt Decision, 156 Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force, 157 Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), 114 Voting, in Hawaii, 203–204 Vuntut Gwitchin, 403 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement, May 29, 1993, 404–405 Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government Agreement, 405 Wa-gah-sah-pi (Whip), 349 Wa-pan-gia (Swan), 294 Wa-pel-lo, Chief, 331–332 Wa-Swa-Gon Treaty Association, 157 Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), 292 Wabanaki, 211, 236, 716–718 Wabash River (Indiana) treaty history of, 443–444 See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795 Wabekieshiek, 753 Wabinema (White Sturgeon), 765 Waco (Wacoe), 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Wade, Alfred, 362 Wagohaw, 301 Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), 356 Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-pee (the One That Is Used as a Shield), 358 Wah-mun-dee-o-pee-doo-tah (the War Eagle with the Red Tail), 359 Wah-mun-dee-wak-kon-o (the War Eagle in the Air), 359 Wah-no-ke-ga (Noise), 356

1-800-368-6868

Index Wahpakoota (Wahpaakootah, Wahpacoota, Wahpahoota, Wahpekute), 100, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux— Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands, August 5, 1851, 336 Wahpeton Sioux, 100 agreement with, 102 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands, February 19, 1867, 364–365 Wahunsonacock (Powhatan), 235, 863–864, 879–880 Wakinyantanka, 847 Walker, Catherine, 330 Walker, Joel, 343 Walker, John, 70, 296 Walker, Robert, 411 Walker, T. H., 333 Walker, Thomas, 282 Walker, William, 323 Walking Buffalo (Tatangamania), 294 Walking Purchase, 245–246 Walla Walla (Wallawalla), 98–99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 Walleye War, 249 Wallis, Michael, 852–853 Wallooska, 229 table 1 Walton, George, 289 Wampanoag, 116, 928, 942 Wampum, 162 Wampum belts, 135 Wapaghkonnetta, 312 Wapulla, 302 the War Eagle in the Air (Wah-mundee-wak-kon-o), 359 the War Eagle with the Red Tail (Wah-mun-dee-o-peedoo-tah), 359 War of 1744-1748, 237

www.abc-clio.com

War of 1812, 17, 21, 28, 56, 78, 247, 427, 645, 647, 649, 650, 651 and Indian removal, 84, 85 and Prairie du Chien, 430–431 and Tippecanoe River, 440 treaties after, 262–263 See also Ghent, Treaty of War on Poverty, 35, 114 Ward, William, 87 Ward v. Race Horse, 43, 150, 151 Warm Springs, 152, 414, 415 Warm Springs Power Enterprises Warm Springs Reservation, 112, 227, 684, 697 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 43, 62, 114, 691–692 Wasco, 98–99, 149 Wascopam, 415 Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P. Cerre), 349, 356 Washakie (Pina Quahah; Scar Face), 373–374, 907–909 Washington, D.C., 7 Washington, George, 14, 53–54, 71, 73, 74, 163, 212, 213, 251–252, 424 Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789, 643–644 and Blount, William, 757 and civilization policy, 96 and Clark, William, 775 and Cornplanter, 782 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 and Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 645 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 821 and Hopewell Treaty, 285–286 and Indian removal, 83 and Knox, Henry, 839 and Little Turtle, 850 and Red Jacket, 869–870, 885 scorched-earth policy of, 641 and Six Nations Treaty, 287–288 and St. Clair, Arthur, 903 treaties under, 261–262 Washington, John M., 334, 411 Washington, Treaty of, 263, 429 Washington administration, 77 Washington City, Treaty of, 417 Washington State, 225 jurisdiction in, 173 See also Pacific Northwest Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association v. Tollefson, 153

ABC-CLIO

I-53

Washington Territory, 96–97, 101 treaties in, 99 See also Pacific Northwest Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 42, 62, 153–154 Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), 294 Wastch-com-ma-nu (Hard Walker), 356 Wat-che-mon-ne, 328 the Watchfull Fox (Kee-o-kuck), 328 Water, 134–135 Water quality, 141 Water rights, 42–43, 143–145, 175 Water Settlement Acts, 116 Watie, David, 888 Watie, Gallegina. See Boudinot, Elias Watie, Stand, 88, 89, 105, 321, 322, 333, 418, 667, 738, 888, 909–910 Watkins, Arthur V., 684, 910–911, 952 and Indian Claims Commission, 825 Watohkonk. See Kicking Bird Watson, William H., 363, 364, 365 Wau-bon-a-quot, 365 Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, 324 Wau-ke-wau, 323 Wau-pish-shaw, 319 Waubredoaince, 330 Waukikum, 229 table 1 Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 799, 912 Waupaucowela, 286 Waw-baw-que-ke-aw, 322 Waw-was-mo-queh, 323 Wax, Murray L., 794 Way Aga Enogee, 292 Way-namee, 365 Wayne, Anthony, 73–74, 74–75, 76, 289, 412, 426, 646, 775, 839, 846, 850, 902, 913–914 WDNR. See Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Chief, 303 We the People, 161 We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother), 324–325 Wea, 72, 79 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., May 30, 1854, 340

1-800-368-6868

I-54

Index

Wea (cont.) Treaty with the Piankashaw, October 29, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Wea, August 11, 1820, 301 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 and Vincennes, 442 and Wabash River, 443 Wearer of Shoes (Tetawiouche), 298 Weatherford, William, 865 Webster, Daniel, 870 Weeminuche (Wiminuche), 272 Weller, Walter, 315 Wells, William, 442, 807, 850, 914–915 Welsh, Herbert, 826 Wem-se-ko, 323 Wenatshapam, 344–345 Wessells, Captain, 802 Wessonsuoum, 766 West, Rick, 734 West Indies, 55 Western Cherokee Treaty with the Western Cherokee, May 6, 1828, 308 Treaty with the Western Cherokee, February 14, 1833, 315–316 Westphalia, Treaty of, 50, 947 Wethillas Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Wethillas, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Wet’suwet’en, 729–730 Whaling industry, in Hawaii, 201, 202, 203 Wheelapa, 229 table 1 Wheeler-Howard Ac t. See Indian Reorganization Act Wheelock, Eleazor, 180 Whig Party, 653 Whip (Wa-gah-sah-pi), 349 Whipple, Henry, 18, 26

www.abc-clio.com

Whirling Thunder, 356 White, Ashton S. H., 369 White, Edward Douglass, 44, 825 White, Hugh Lawson, 842 White, James, 792 White, John, 365 White Antelope, Chief, 352, 733 White Bear (Satanta), 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 White Bear’s Face (Mah-to-wee-tah), 304 White Breast, 356 White Cloud (Ma-hos-kah), 302 White Cow (Ta-su), 356 White Elks (Ha-hah-kus-ka), 304 White Eyes, 424 White Hair, Chief, 303 White Horse, 352, 838 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 114 White River, 21 White Shield, 838 White Thunder, 901 Whitefoot v. United States, 152 Whiteley, Simeon, 354 Whiteman, William H., 904 Whitetree, John, 365 Whitney, Eli, 84 Wichita (Witchetaw), 30, 57, 104, 268 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., August 4, 1835, 320 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., May 15, 1846, 332 Wickett, Susanna, 888 Wilcox, Robert, 205 Wild game, 17 Wild Rice Lake Reserve, 158 Wilkie, Madeline, 802 Wilkinson, Charles, 795 Wilkinson, James, 290, 291, 790 Willamette Valley, 97 Willamette Valley Treaty Commission, 225, 229 table 1 Willays Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 William the Conqueror, 944 Williams, George, 309 Williams, Mennen G., 710–711 Williams, Roger, 766, 767, 859, 860, 872, 915–917 Williams, Thomas (Teharagwanegen), 289

ABC-CLIO

Williams treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga, October to November 1923, 393–394 treaty document, 627–635 Williams v. Lee, 62, 113, 114, 173, 686–687, 702, 703, 926 Willis, Albert, 204 Wilson, Dick, 743 Wilson, Elizabeth, 887 Wilson, Joshua, 348 Wilson, Richard, 704–706, 747 Wilson, Woodrow, 33 Wiminuche. See Weeminuche Winan brothers, 150–151 Wind, James, 352 Wind River Reservation, 171, 175, 227–228, 372, 374 Windom, William, 800 Winema, 768 Winnebago, 70, 91–92, 100, 104, 278 and jurisdiction, 161 and Prairie du Chien, 431 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., August 11, 1827, 307 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August 19, 1825, 304–305, 459–463 Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., August 25, 1828, 308–309 Treaty with the Winnebago, August 1, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Winnebago, September 15, 1832, 313 Treaty with the Winnebago, November 1, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Winnebago, October 13, 1846, 333 Treaty with the Winnebago, February 27, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, 1859, 350 Treaty with the Winnebago, March 8, 1865, 356 Winnebago Reservation, 161, 350 Winnipeg Treaty. See Canadian Indian Treaty 5 Winslow, Edward, 854–855 Winter’s doctrine, 143, 144–145 Winters v. United States, 42, 138, 143, 170, 678–679, 944 Wirt, William, 56, 57, 654, 655 Wisconsin, 23 jurisdiction in, 172, 173 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1

1-800-368-6868

Index Wisconsin Death March, 91 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 156 Wisconsin Supreme Court, 249 Wish-ham, 345 Wo-A-Si Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-ASi, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3 Wo-Woz Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, WoWoz, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3 Wolcott, Alexander, 765 Wolcott, Oliver, 285, 640 Wolf, Captain, 309 the Wolf (Nes-mo-ea), 328 the Wolf with the High Back (Sho-emow-e-to-chaw-ca-wewah-ca-to-we), 303 Wolfe, James, 902 Woll-pah-pe, 357 the Womb (Tah-hah-nee-o-tah), 304 Woolrich, Julia, 662–663 Worcester, Samuel Austin, 758 Worcester, Rev. Samuel Austin, 57, 88, 429, 655 Worcester v. Georgia, 22, 23, 40, 57, 60, 88, 113, 136, 166, 213, 263, 265, 639, 653, 655–656, 658, 671, 686, 692, 703, 926, 954 and government-to-government relationship, 930 and guardianship/wardship, 931 and Indian removal, 935 and right of conquest, 945 and right of occupancy/right of the soil, 946 and sovereignty, 948 and trust responsibility, 957 Work, Hubert, 763 Workman, David, 769 World War I, 30 World War II, 34, 687 and Indian veterans, 138–139 Wososey, 297 Wounded Knee occupation of, 171, 701, 703–706, 712 Wounded Knee massacre, 139, 168 Wowinape, 848 Wozencraft, Oliver, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Wright, Allen, 362 Written document, 6, 135, 149, 162

www.abc-clio.com

Wyam, 151 Wyandot, 15, 20, 21, 55, 71, 72, 73, 79, 100, 134, 148, 246, 278 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot, December 14, 1843, 332 and Fort Harmar, 420 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., August 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc., February 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 29, 1817, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 17, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, September 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 19, 1832, 312 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, 1836, 323 Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, 1842, 330 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1, 1850, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, January 31, 1855, 343 Wyandot Reservation, 298 Wynkoop, Edward, 773 Wyoming jurisdiction in, 175 Ya-ha-hadge, 316

ABC-CLIO

I-55

Ya-Ma-Do Treaty with the Das-Pia, YaMa-Do, etc., July 1851, 231 table 3 Yahooskin, 227 Yakama Indian Reservation, 227 Yakama War of 1855-1856, 410 Yakama (Yakima), 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 414, 415, 696–697 and fishing rights, 42, 148, 150–151, 152 and gathering rights, 159 and jurisdiction, 170 Treaty with the Yakama, June 9, 1855, 344–345, 510–513 Yakima. See Yakama Yallup, William, 148 Yamasee, 259 Yamhill Kalapuya, 229 table 1 Yampa, 272 Yankton Sioux, 722–723 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 349 Yanktonai and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Sioux— Yanktonai Band, October 20, 1865, 359–360 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Yanktonai Band, October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 369 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Yas-Si Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., September 1851, 231 table 3 Yavapai, 136 Yavapai-Prescott, 116 Yellow Bear, 367 Yellow Bird (John Rollin Ridge), 886–887 Yellow Feather (Massasoit), 854–855

1-800-368-6868

I-56

Index

Yellow Hawk (Cha-tau-’hne), 359 Yellow Smoke (Sha-da-na-ge), 356 Yellow Thunder, Raymond, 704 Yellow Thunder Camp, 140 Yoncalla Kalapuya, 230 table 2 York, Duke of, 275, 276 Young, Brigham, 908 Young, Ewing, 769 Young, James, 152

www.abc-clio.com

Young, John, 365 Young King, 289, 290, 885 Young Prophet, 356 Young Wolf, 297 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 41 Yu-Ki-As Treaty with the Sai-Nell, YuKi-As, etc., August 1851, 231 table 3

ABC-CLIO

Yuma, 268, 273 Yurok, 175 Zah, Peterson, 912 Zebaedal (Big Bow), 897 Zebco tribe, 157 Zimmerman, William, 911 Zuni, 272

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty VOLUME III

Donald L. Fixico EDITOR

Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Copyright 2008 by ABC-CLIO, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Treaties with American Indians: an encyclopedia of rights, conflicts, and sovereignty/Donald L. Fixico, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57607-880-8 (hard copy: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57607-881-5 (ebook) 1. Indians of North America—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Indians of North America—United States—Treaties—Encyclopedias. 3. Indians of North America—Government relations. I. Fixico, Donald Lee, 1951– KF8203.6.R74 2008 342.7308’72—dc22 2007027797 12 11 10 09 08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Senior Production Editor: Vicki Moran Editorial Assistant: Sara Springer Production Manager: Don Schmidt Media Editor: Caroline Price Media Resources Coordinator: Ellen Brenna Dougherty Media Resources Manager: Caroline Price File Manager: Paula Gerard ABC-CLIO, Inc 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an ebook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Manufactured in the United States of America

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

This important study of Indian treaties is dedicated to the people of my tribes, who have suffered, endured, and now prosper again: To the Shawnee, To the Sac and Fox, To the Seminole, and To the Muscogee Creek —Donald L. Fixico

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Contents VOLUME I Thematic Essays Regional Essays

VOLUME II U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties Important Treaty Sites Primary Source Documents

VOLUME III Historical Chronology Biographies Treaty Related Issues

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Volume III Introduction, xiii

Historical Chronology Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775 Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada) Commerce Clause and Native Americans Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789 Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794 Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811 Battle of the Thames, 1813 Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814 Treaty of Ghent, 1814 Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 Indian Removal Act, 1830 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 Mitchel v. United States, 1835 Trail of Tears Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1852 Long Walk, 1864 Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867 662 Constitution Act (Canada), 1867 Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 Indian Appropriations Act, 1871 Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 Indian Act of Canada, 1876 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883 Elk v. Wilkins, 1884

www.abc-clio.com

637 638 640 641 642 643 645 646 647 649 651 652 652 654 655 656 657 659 660 661

663 664 666 667 668 669 670

United States v. Kagama, 1886 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887 St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887 Atoka Agreement, 1897 Curtis Act, 1898 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 Winters v. United States, 1908 Meriam Report, 1928 Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 United States v. Creek Nation, 1935 Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946 House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953 Public Law 280, 1953 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955 Williams v. Lee, 1959 Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960 Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965 Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968 Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon, 1969 Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

671 672 673 674 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 691 692 693 695 696 697 698 700

x

Volume III Contents

Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973 McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 1973 Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974 Morton v. Mancari, 1974 American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 People v. LeBlanc, 1976 Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977 Longest Walk, 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978 United States v. Wheeler, 1978 Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980

701 702 703 706 708 709 710 711 712 713 714

715 716 719

Constitution Act (Canada), 1982 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983 United States v. Dion, 1986 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988 Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990 Self-Government Agreements (Canada) Cobell Case, 1996 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology, 2000 Rice v. Cayetano, 2000 Sand Creek Massacre Site Return, 2002 National Museum of the American Indian, 2004 Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act, 2005 Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock Café, 2007

720 721 722 723 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 733 734 735

Biographies Adair, William P. Adams, Hank American Indian Movement (AIM) American Indian Policy Review Commission Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou Aupaumut, Hendrick Bagot Commission (Canada) Banks, Dennis Barboncito Bearskin, Leaford Bellecourt, Clyde Black Hawk Black Kettle Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy Blount, William Boudinot, Elias Brant, Joseph Buffalo

www.abc-clio.com

737 738 739 741 742 744 745 746 748 749 750 752 754 755 756 758 759 760

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Burke, Charles H. Caldwell, Billy Canassatego Canonicus Captain Jack Carson, Kit Cass, Lewis Chivington, John Milton Chouteau, Auguste Clark, William Cochise Cohen, Felix S. Collier, John Cooper, Douglas H. Cornplanter Costo, Rupert Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

761 763 764 765 766 767 769 771 772 774 775 776 778 779 780 781 783 784

Volume III Contents Crowfoot Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes) Dawes, Henry Laurens De La Cruz, Joseph Burton Dearborn, Henry Deer, Ada E. Deloria, Vine, Jr. Deskaheh Dodge, Henry Dodge, Henry Chee Doolittle Committee Dull Knife Dumont, Gabriel Emathla, Charley Erasmus, George Henry Eskiminzin Forsyth, Thomas Gadsden, James Gaines, Edmund Pendleton Geronimo (Goyathlay) Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Handsome Lake Harjo, Chitto Harjo, Suzan Shown Harrison, William Henry Hawkins, Benjamin Hendrick Hitchcock, Ethan Allen Indian Claims Commission (ICC) Indian Rights Association (IRA) Jackson, Andrew Jackson, Helen Hunt Jefferson, Thomas Jemison, Alice Mae Lee Jerome, David H. Jesup, Thomas S. Johnson, William Joseph Kicking Bird Knox, Henry LaDuke, Winona Lea, Luke

www.abc-clio.com

785 786 787 788 789 791 792 796 797 798 800 801 802 804 804 805 806 808 810 812 813 814 817 818 819 821 822 824 825 826 827 828 831 832 833 834 836 837 838 839 840 842

LeFlore, Greenwood Leupp, Francis Ellington Lewis, Meriwether Little Crow Little Turtle Lone Wolf (Guipähgo) Mankiller, Wilma Pearl Manuelito Massasoit McGillivray, Alexander McIntosh, William, Jr. Means, Russell Metacom Oakes, Richard Old Briton Opechancanough Opothleyahola Osceola Oshkosh Ouray Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh) Parker, Quanah Penn, William Pike, Albert Pitchlynn, Peter Pokagun Pontiac Powhatan Pratt, Richard Henry Pushmataha Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta) Red Jacket Ridge, John Rollin Ridge, Major Riel, Louis Ross, John Satanta Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe Seattle (Seath’tl) Sitting Bear (Setangya or Satank) Sitting Bull Sohappy, David, Sr. Spotted Tail St. Clair, Arthur

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xi 843 844 845 847 849 850 851 853 854 855 856 857 858 861 862 863 864 866 867 868 869 870 872 874 876 877 878 879 880 882 883 884 886 888 889 890 892 893 894 896 897 899 900 902

xii

Volume III Contents

Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi) Tecumseh Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes, Inshta Theamba) Uncas Washakie (Pina Quahah, Scar Face)

903 904 905 906 907

Watie, Stand Watkins, Arthur V. Wauneka, Annie Dodge Wayne, Anthony Wells, William Williams, Roger

909 910 912 913 914 915

Treaty Related Issues Aboriginal Title Allotments Annuities Assimilation Doctrine of Discovery Domestic Dependent Nation Executive Order Reservations Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) Federally Recognized Tribes Government-to-Government Relationship Guardianship/Wardship Indian Country Indian New Deal Indian Removal Indian Territory Inuit Métis

919 920 921 922 924 925 926 927 929 930 931 933 934 935 936 937 938

Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada) Non-recognized Tribes Plenary Power Reserved Rights Doctrine Right of Conquest Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil Sacred Sites Sovereignty Specific Claims (Canada) State-Recognized Tribes Supremacy Clause Termination Treaty Trust Doctrine Trust Land Trust Responsibility

Resources, R-1 Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings, R-1 Tribal Name Meanings, R-7 Treaties by Tribe, R-14 Common Treaty Names, R-31

Selected Bibliography, B-1 Index, I-1

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 950 951 952 953 954 956 957

Introduction PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP is the most commonly used phrase in the language of Indian treaties. The intent of the United States as a young country was to persuade Indian communities to deal only with the United States. Many things were unsettled following the American Revolution, and the tribes found themselves in the middle of it. In the early years of U.S.Indian relations, the tribes also had common interest with the British, the French, and the Dutch. Indian agents and other government officials in the United States negotiated more than four hundred treaties and agreements with American Indians; treaty talks occurred for more than one hundred years. Interestingly, Indian and white leaders met at various sites that often had been the meeting places for previous trading and council meetings. Negotiating in Native languages and English through interpreters was difficult, although some Native people spoke some of the white man’s tongue. Beginning in 1778 with the Delaware, when the United States negotiated its first successful treaty with an Indian tribe and ratified it, a historic precedent was set, one that has made Native Americans a unique minority in their own country. For the record, Indian tribes in what is now the United States also made treaties with the British, the French, the Confederate States during the Civil War, and with other Indian tribes. In Canada, the federal government negotiated seventeen treaties with the First Nations peoples, starting in 1871 and ending in the twentieth century. These consist of thirteen numbered treaties plus the four Robinson and Williams treaties. The mid-nineteenth century represented the zenith of treaty making; during the next twenty years, the practice sharply declined. A rider attached to a congressional appropriations act in 1871 ended the Indian treaty-making business in the United States, although agreements were negotiated until 1917. The Act of 1871 did not end the recognition of Indian treaties, however; it merely halted the treatymaking process. U.S.-Indian treaties often included more than one tribe, and some tribes signed many treaties.

www.abc-clio.com

There are 374 ratified treaties and 16 agreements. The first treaty was concluded in 1778; the last one, during the late nineteenth century. The shortest treaty is with the Kickapoo in 1820. The treaty is 16 lines long, with 8 Kickapoo leaders and 6 American officials who signed, involving $2,000 to be paid for Kickapoo removal. The longest treaty is the Treaty with the New York Indians of 1838 at Buffalo Creek in New York; that treaty is 15 pages long. The Potawatomi signed the most treaties of any tribe, a total of 26. The biggest gathering was the council held at Medicine Lodge, Kansas, during October 1867, at which 500 soldiers met with more than 15,000 Plains Indians gathered from the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche. The largest number of treaties were signed in 1825 and 1836, 20 each year; 19 treaties were signed in 1855, 18 in 1865, and 17 in 1832. In regard to categories, 229 treaties involve ceded lands; 205 are about payments and annuities; 202 include the phrase peace and friendship; 115 are about boundaries; 99 address reservations; 70 include civilization and agriculture; 59 are about roads and free passages; 52 address the sovereignty or the authority of the United States or tribes; 49 include allotment and guaranteed lands; 47 contain gifts, goods, or presents; 38 contain provisions on education; 34 contain provisions on hunting, fishing, and gathering rights; 28 authorize forts and military posts; 25 include trade; 12 address railroads; several include agents for the tribes; and a few treaties deal with one or more of the following: stolen horses, returning prisoners, slavery, returning criminals, intruders, scalping, alcohol, missions, and mail routes. Treaties between Indian tribes and the United States are binding agreements. For Native peoples, each step of the negotiation was important, not just the resulting words on a piece of paper. Indian agents, military officials, and officials of the Indian Office met with Native leaders to begin negotiations, which usually began with a council held at a previously agreed-upon site. To Native people, the chosen

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xiv

Introduction

site was important, and the talk itself was just as significant as the resulting treaty or agreement. The site itself, such as the one near Medicine Lodge in southwestern Kansas and Prairie du Chien in western Wisconsin, set the tone of the council. Medicine Lodge has made a lasting impression and is reenacted every five years. The first meeting, or council, between Indian and white leaders likely made or broke the tone of the talks. The council was a fundamental concept among the Indian nations, and tribal protocols varied from tribe to tribe. Unsure of how to approach the various tribes, federal officials depended upon local whites, guides, and traders to introduce them to the tribes in their areas. Familiar with the ways of the Indian tribe, these individuals advised officials how to approach Native leaders. In learning the protocol for dealing with tribes, federal officials experienced difficulty in meeting with more than one tribe at the same time. They made the mistake of trying to get enemy tribes to meet at the same council. Even tribes who met only sometimes, such as the Plains Indians, who gathered annually during the summer to hold the Sun Dance, had a mutual understanding of the importance of the arrival at camp, as exemplified by the Medicine Lodge Council in 1867. Dressed in their finest ceremonial garb, a tribe also sometimes wanted to be the last to arrive so that other tribal groups would acknowledge that an important group had arrived. Protocol is involved in any type of summit, council, or important discussion involving conflicting interests, especially if there are deep differences between cultures. In the general situation of treaty talks, white officials learned a lot about the importance of kinship relations in forming an agreement, especially if it resulted in an alliance between the two sides. Early treaties—those concluded before the mid-nineteenth century—were often peace treaties, for the United States wanted tribes to acknowledge their relationship with the new nation and abrogate relations with the British and the French. Bringing about peace following a battle or other conflict created balance between two opposites, and this tranquil state of existence fostered mutual respect between the two parties and a need for ceremonial acknowledgement. Thus, smoking the pipe was germane to solidifying the new relationship of nonconflict. The language barrier between the two sides caused great skills in diplomacy to be exercised. During the height of contact between Indians and

www.abc-clio.com

whites in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 250 indigenous languages were spoken. The role of interpreters, both Indian and white, became crucial to treaty negotiations. The varying protocols among tribes for holding councils compelled American officials to learn about tribal leaders before talks of a serious nature began. Cultural differences added to language barriers as problems arose, often intensifying the clashing views of Indians and whites over land. One perceived land and what it meant economically, and the other understood the earth philosophically and celebrated it with ceremonies. The same commodity became homeland for both sides, and ensuing treaties named who owned the land. A new culture of treaty making emerged from the older Indian way of holding council and talking. Gift giving played a crucial role in the early contact and negotiations between Indian and white leaders. Federal officials typically brought gifts of inexpensive items such as mirrors, metalwork, and beads to get the Indians into a peaceful frame of mind that would lead to the discussion of bigger issues, such as land cessions. As mentioned, at least forty-seven treaties contained provisions for giving gifts and presents. Officials understood the importance of generosity and sharing among Native peoples and used this against them, hence the “Great White Father” in Washington held a position of respect and generosity. The cultural difference between Indians and whites proved to be enormous. In addition to the language barriers, both sides operated from different mind-sets; each held different ideas about what was important for the negotiations and what the negotiations meant. Native leaders and federal officials had a challenging situation to overcome before they could begin successful discussions. It is said that, on one occasion Osceola, the noted leader of the Seminole in Florida, disagreeing with tribal leaders who signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson in 1833, stabbed his knife through the two pieces of paper on the table. This was his angry response to all treaties, letting others know that his mind was set on going to war. It is likely that this did happen since there is a hole in the original treaty kept in a vault at the National Archives in Washington. “Touching the pen” became a common occurrence during Indian treaty making. Native leaders were unable to write their names because they did not know the English language, and therefore white officials asked Native leaders to “make their

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

mark”—which was of little importance to American Indians, who believed that the spoken word was superior to any words on a piece of paper, which might be blown away by the wind or destroyed; the spoken word would always be remembered. Several treaty councils witnessed impressive oratory articulated by tribal leaders. This was not the white way. The majority of Indian treaties verify the marks made by the tribal leaders. In other situations, the leaders refused to hold the white man’s writing instrument, and the federal officials asked the Native leaders to touch the pen after the names were written by the official in charge. The most important concern for Native peoples in treaty negotiations was their sovereignty. Sovereignty is an important issue of concern resulting from the U.S.-Indian and Canada-First Nations agreements. The signing of a treaty creates binding responsibilities between both sides and includes the respectful recognition of each for the other. Theoretically, the relationship between the two sides is one of a sovereign forming an agreement with another sovereign—that is, government-to-government in a lateral relationship of similar status. The status is one of international law and based on each party to the treaty having faith in the agreement and recognizing each other as being sovereign. Trust is a meaningful legal responsibility between two nations and their people, and treaties established this reciprocal relationship. Both sides of a treaty agreement must abide by the provisions and must continue to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the document. That trust responsibility continues into this century, in the hands of the assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior, who supervises the Bureau of Indian Affairs for all tribes in the United States. Treaties were a systematic procedure for dealing with Indian tribes. By examining the history of these agreements, some assessment can be made about them in stages or phases. For example, treaty negotiations, talks, or councils were the first step in this system of agreements. During these important gatherings, significant Indian individuals were recognized and acknowledged so the representatives of the United States would know who they were dealing with. In some cases, such as the Prairie du Chien meeting, “making chiefs” occurred; this happened more than once when government officials persuaded certain individuals to sign for their tribes as leaders. The federal government operated on the political philosophy that a head of state represented

www.abc-clio.com

xv

a nation, thus an Indian nation must have one significant leader or chief. This was not the case with many tribes, such as the Muscogee Creek, the Ojibwa, and others, who had leaders for each town or village and settlements scattered over a vast region of the country. Discussion of the treaty’s provisions was another critical phase of Indian treaty making. Both sides met with an agenda of needs, according to their thinking, and they lobbied to obtain agreement from the other side. Some acute Native leaders saw that education was an important part of the future of their people and wanted educational assistance in the form of teachers. Common provisions included goods and annuities over a number of years and perhaps blacksmiths. Most of all, large sums of money were paid to the tribes for their lands. The next phase consisted of the results of treaties—some of which caused important changes, such as the exchange of enormous tracts of land for perpetual gifts, or changes in fishing or hunting rights on ceded lands. The treaties led to a new era in Indian-white relations and actually marked the decline of the strength of Indian nations. This decline became evident as tribes such as the Potawatomi, Delaware, Chippewa, and others signed several treaties with the United States. After 1800, the federal government almost always had the leverage in treaty talks. Strategies of treaty-making involve several motives, all of which resulted in the decline of the Indian nations. These strategies involved introducing the idea of one nation, one leader; setting boundaries; manipulating leadership; making chiefs; courting treaty signers; and giving gifts to influence tribes and their leaders. Such actions almost always were directed toward Indian men, not toward women (although, in many tribes, women held the authority to select their leaders). Peace was the main objective in the early U.S. treaties until about 1850. The federal government found it much easier to make peace with the Indian nations than to fight them, which proved costly, especially as great effort was needed just to find them. The United States signed 374 treaties but fought more than 1,600 wars, battles, and skirmishes against Indian tribes. The Navajo Treaty of 1849 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 were negotiated with peaceful objectives in mind rather than more land cessions. The Fort Laramie agreement involved multiple groups of the Northern Plains, Sioux, Gros Ventre, Mandan, Arikara, Assinaboine, Blackfeet, Crow,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

xvi

Introduction

Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Boundaries were set to keep them apart, with additional provisions for roads and military posts included as part of the treaty. The establishment of boundaries for tribes was another goal for government officials as they treated with Indian leaders. Many tribes hunted over vast territories; government officials were able to contain tribes within certain areas, and they reminded leaders of the boundaries established in the agreements. Officials introduced Native peoples to the idea of land ownership and individual ownership. In 1858, the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux signed a treaty in Washington, D.C., agreeing to new reservation boundaries. This led to the surveying of the tribal land for division into individual eighty-acre allotments. In this way, tribal lands were reduced in size. At times, the United States undermined and manipulated leadership to get the lands it wanted. The importance of kinship played a vital role in treaty making between Indians and the United States. Federal officials learned of the importance of kinship and symbolic bonds in tribal communities and used this knowledge to develop a tribal dependence on the “Great White Father” in Washington. When the leaders of tribes refused to negotiate, federal officials sought out other Indians who were more easily persuaded to sign treaty documents. Land acquisition was the principal reason for treaties and was pursued to such an extreme extent that, by the end of the nineteenth century, American Indians held less than 2 percent of the land that they had once possessed totally. The unleashed white settler became an uncontrollable force to consume Indian lands. Such was the settlers’ greed that federal officials were forced to deal with tribes, which resulted in many Indian removal treaties or war. A domino effect occurred as eastern tribes moved onto lands of interior groups, who moved onto lands of western tribes, and so forth. Expansion of the United States was another goal of government officials. During the Civil War, federal officials negotiated, and the government ratified, eighteen treaties that called for expanding the territory held by the Union. During the three years between March 1862 and March 1865, federal officials concluded treaties with the Kansa, Ottawa, Chippewa, Nez Percé, Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, Modoc, Omaha, Winnebago, and Ponca Nations. These agreements included land cessions and fur-

www.abc-clio.com

ther diminished the territories of the tribes. Indian lands were further reduced by the systematic creation of “permanent” reservations. Control of tribal movements was the final strategy and result of the treaties. With treaties in place and with military power greater than that of the tribes, the United States could enforce control over the weakened Indian nations. Once the leaders were undermined and control exerted over them, Indian superintendents controlled the Indians and conditions on the almost two hundred reservations throughout Indian country. Land was the central issue of U.S.-Indian treaties. As more settlers arrived from England and other countries, the need for more Indian land placed considerable pressure on the Indian tribes. A domino effect began to occur as eastern seaboard tribes of the Atlantic coast retreated inland, thereby encroaching on the hunting domains and farming areas of tribes nearby to the west. The expansion of white settlement across the Appalachian Mountains caused the newly formed United States to treat with the inland tribes. British agents and traders worked among the Indian nations to gain their allegiance and convince them to reject the proposed talks of federal officials. At the same time, other European interests in the form of French, Scots, and Irish traders proved successful in obtaining acceptance among tribes. These trading activities made it more difficult for the United States as more Americans pushed into the Ohio Valley and the back country of the Southeast. The most obvious kind of treaty called for tribes to surrender their lands. In less than thirty years, from 1801 to 1829, federal officials made thirty-one treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These cession treaties extinguished Indian title to all of the area east of the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico. Officially, treaties had to be ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Congressional ratification was most active during the 1800s, as federal officials met with Native leaders at an increasing rate. Treaty making fell into a pattern: More and more treaties were negotiated with eastern tribes, who were thus forced to keep moving westward; the Delaware, for example, were forced to remove at least nine times. Unratified treaties were agreements not confirmed by the U.S. Congress. Naturally, many agree-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Introduction

ments were submitted to Congress; most submissions were ratified, and some had their provisions amended. It is estimated that between forty-seven and eighty-seven treaties were unratified. Most Native leaders did not understand the ratification process and believed that all the agreements they made were official.

Organization of the Encyclopedia This encyclopedia is intended as a comprehensive reference tool for anyone interested in American Indian treaties with the United States. In these three volumes, the larger number of U.S.-Indian treaties, their lengths and complexity, and the complexity of Canada-Indian treaties are described. The volumes are organized in sections. The first volume consists of major essays that explain various perspectives on Indian treaties, and regional treaties. In the second volume, entries are included that describe each treaty; short entries address treaty sites and terms; and there are primary source documents of many treaties. The third volume contains a historical chronology, brief biographies of noted individuals involved in the treaties, and a section on treatyrelated issues.

Acknowledgments This three-volume project has been the work of many people. I have often felt like an academic Sisyphus, facing the enormous task of rolling the big boulder up the mountain. More than three hundred people have helped, supported, and written entries or essays for this encyclopedia. I am grateful for the help of the following individuals, who assisted with this project in the early years at the Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at the University of Kansas: research assistants Viv Ibbett, Melissa Fisher Isaacs, David Querner, and Elyse Towey. I appreciate the support given my work by Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shulenburger, former Associate Dean Carl Strikwerda, and former Dean Kim Wilcox at the University of Kansas.

www.abc-clio.com

xvii

I would like to express appreciation to the following individuals at Arizona State University, who have been helpful in the completion of this project over the last two years: President Michael Crow; Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Capaldi; former Provost Milton Glick; Vice President David Young, Divisional Dean Debra Losse; former Chairperson Noel Stowe of the History Department; and Chairperson Mark von Hagen. I am grateful for the support from the ASU Foundation, which sponsors my Distinguished Professorship of History, and for ASU as a leading university that supports scholarship in American Indian history. I especially want to thank Clara Keyt as a research and editorial assistant. I thank my research assistants during the final phase: Matt Garrett, Cody Marshall, and Kristin Youngbull; they have helped to track down a lot of information as well as doing other chores. With their help, after I moved to Arizona, the boulder was pushed the rest of the way to the top of the mountain in the sun with a smile. Appreciation is also expressed to all the contributors who wrote entries and the noted scholars who wrote the essays for the encyclopedia. Nor would this project have been possible without the patience, effort, and tremendous understanding of my good friend and editor, Steven Danver. Thank you to Caroline Price for the tremendous illustrations; and to April Wells-Hayes for the thorough copyedit of the manuscript. I wish all editors were like Vicki Moran who guided this project smoothly through all its production stages. I am especially grateful to my wife, Professor April Summitt, whose words of support encouraged me to complete this project. I am also grateful to my son, Keytha Fixico, who has patiently waited for me so that we could go to a movie and do other son-and-dad stuff. Always, I am grateful for the support of my parents, John and Virginia Fixico; and I want to acknowledge my four tribes—the Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Seminole, and Muscogee Creek—to whom this three-volume encyclopedia is dedicated.

ABC-CLIO

Donald L. Fixico Arizona State University

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Historical Chronology Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760 Provisions concerning aboriginal rights were included in the terms of the Capitulation of Montreal which, on September 8, 1760, sealed the surrender of France and brought an end to the Seven Years’ War on North American soil. This act, drafted without the input of Native representatives, articulated the foundations of Britain’s policy regarding indigenous peoples in the newly conquered territories. France’s former allies would in no way be molested for having played a part during the hostilities. More important, their territorial rights and religious freedom would be protected. During the summer of 1760, the British mounted a vigorous offensive against Montreal, the strategic heart of the French colony since the fall of Quebec the year before. When it became clear that reinforcements were not forthcoming from Europe and that further resistance would prove futile, the governor general of New France, Marquis Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil de Cavagnial, resolved to surrender. On September 8, Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of the invasion force, signed the Act of Capitulation. This guaranteed that the vanquished regular troops would safely return to France and that the civil and religious liberties of the population that now found itself under de facto British rule would be maintained. Of the fifty-five articles that make up this capitulation, only five allude to American Indians. Three of these in fact pertain to the protection of French soldiers and Canadian colonists (Articles 9, 47, and 51), and the other two are directly concerned with the welfare of the latter’s traditional allies. Article 8 specifies that the British would provide medical care to the injured and sick Native warriors. Most significantly, Article 40 stipulates that “[t]he Savage or Indian allies of his most Christian Majesty [the king of France], shall be maintained in the Lands they inhabit; if they choose to remain there; they shall not be disturbed on any pretense whatsoever, for having taken arms, and served his most Christian Majesty,” adding that they would also be free to retain their Catholic religion and missionaries.

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

638

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Odanak and of the Montagnais of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. More recently, it was famously alluded to in the R. v. Sioui decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (1990). At issue was whether or not Article 50, which stipulates that the Act of Capitulation of Montreal extinguished all prior acts of capitulation, rendered obsolete the central piece of evidence in the trial, a disputed treaty between James Murray and the Hurons of Lorette dated September 5, 1760. The court concluded that the article in question applied only to preceding acts signed on behalf of France (such as the Act of Capitulation of Quebec) and that there was no reason to believe that it was intended to extinguish a treaty independently concluded between an aboriginal nation and the British. Article 40, it was reiterated, constituted a legal undertaking by Great Britain not to dispossess the former allies of France of the territories they occupied in 1760. Jean-François Lozier See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Royal Proclamation of 1763; Treaty of Montreal–August 7, 1701. References and Further Reading Delâge, Denis, and Jean-Pierre Sawaya. 2001. Les traités des Sept-Feux avec les Britanniques: droits et pièges d’un héritage colonial au Québec. Sillery, QC: Septentrion. Doughty, Arthur G., and Adam Shortt, eds. 1918. Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1759–1791. 2nd ed. Ottawa: King’s Printer. Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian War: An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 That Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Trans. Kathe Roth. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Jeffrey Amherst fought in the French and Indian War and against Pontiac in 1763. (Library of Congress)

During the final stretch of the Seven Years’ War in North America, British officials had made comparable assurances directly to aboriginal representatives. At Oswegatchie (February 13–14, 1760), Fort Lévis (August 18), and Longueuil (September 5), treaties of neutrality were concluded; at Kahnawake (September 15–16) a further round of negotiations transformed the relationship between France’s former allies in the St. Lawrence valley and the British from one of amicable neutrality to a formal alliance. The Act of Capitulation, it must be stressed, was in contrast an agreement between two European powers. Its outcome was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris (February 10, 1763), although the subsequent Royal Proclamation (October 7, 1763) largely superseded Article 40 by elaborating in clearer terms the basis of future indigenous policy in British North America. Even so, the Act of Capitulation was brought to the attention of the Canadian government on several occasions throughout the nineteenth century to bolster the land claims of the Iroquois of St. Regis (Akwesasne) and of the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (Kanesatake), as well as those of the Abenakis of

www.abc-clio.com

Royal Proclamation of 1763 King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in response to the British conquest of North America. Most importantly, the proclamation reserved the interior of North America for Natives and banned all white settlement therein. It also defined the boundaries of Britain’s newest colonies—Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada—and outlined their governance. In Canada, the proclamation is viewed as the Magna Carta of Native rights, and its importance is cited in the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982. In the United States, in 1831 and 1832, the proclamation influenced

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Royal Proclamation of 1763

William Johnson (1715–1774), British superintendent of Indian affairs in the American colonies, 1755–1774. Johnson concluded the Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois, persuading them to relinquish claims to territory along the frontiers of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, clearing the way for European-American immigration in these areas. (National Archives of Canada/C-083497)

American Supreme Court Justice John Marshall’s decisions in the Cherokee v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia cases that Indians were “domestic dependent nations.” These decisions continue to define the U.S.Indian relationship. Finally, by denying colonists the interior, the proclamation is one of the causes of the American Revolution. The Royal Proclamation was intended to be a temporary measure to provide an orderly establishment of British authority while imperial policies were established. Pontiac’s War of 1763 confirmed that the Indians would not permit the usurpation of their land by the land-hungry thirteen colonies. The proclamation was not a direct response to Pontiac’s War; it had been developed and issued before news of Indian victories reached England. Through the proclamation, Britain hoped to curb American west-

www.abc-clio.com

639

ward expansion and ease tensions with the interior tribes by securing, at least temporarily, their lands. This assurance did help end Pontiac’s War. First, the proclamation placed the Indians under the King’s protection but at the same time denied them the status of “subject.” Second, it affirmed that the Crown held the underlying title to all land east of the Mississippi, whereas the Indians held a right of possession. Third, it reserved for the Indians all land east of the Mississippi, west of the Appalachian height of land, south of the Hudson Bay watershed (Rupert’s Land), and north of Florida. According to the proclamation, these lands, known as Indian Country or Indian Territory, could not be surrendered to the British unless all the Natives concerned in those areas had been consulted in a public assembly by a duly appointed representative of the British Crown. This process was designed to curb “great Frauds and Abuses” and slow westward expansion while preventing frontier wars. Nevertheless, the new process was open to abuse, as the protection of Indian property was placed with the Crown and its agents, the same agents and Crown responsible for obtaining land surrenders from the Indians. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, which extended the proclamation line to the west, represents one of several adjustments to occur before 1775. Fourth, new settlement west of the proclamation line was banned, and all settlers currently living beyond the pale were “forthwith to remove themselves.” Fifth, Native nations governed their lands according to their own laws, but fugitives from British justice were to be pursued and captured on Indian lands if necessary. Sixth, it opened the Indian trade to all British colonists. Licenses were to be provided “without fee or reward” to all applicants, provided they agreed to follow “[r]egulations as We shall think proper to prescribe.” The colonists, particularly Virginians, resented British attempts to limit westward expansion. In practice, settlers ignored the boundary line, or the proclamation line, and began establishing settlements in the interior. Similarly, it was impossible to regulate traders once they crossed the frontier. To explain imperial policies in late 1763, Sir William Johnston, with proclamation in hand, called for a gathering of Native nations at Niagara. In the summer of 1764, more than two thousand people representing more than forty nations arrived to discuss the Royal Proclamation and peace. This meeting was recorded in wampum and in the Niagara Treaty

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

640

Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1755

of 1764. Essentially, the treaty affirmed the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as well as recognized the nation-to-nation relationship between the Indians and the British. Pontiac, one of the key leaders of anti-British sentiment, however, was not present; he signed a separate peace in 1765 warning that the British were not to be trusted despite their promises (Borrows 1997, 155–172). Although it is generally accepted that the proclamation acknowledged Native claims to the land, broader interpretations in Canada maintain that the document recognized aboriginal sovereignty and rights. Nonetheless, by denying Indians the status as “subject,” the proclamation effectively denied Indians rights and sovereignty (Dowd 2002, 177). Regardless of the interpretation applied to the document, the proclamation continues to form the basis for Indian title and land claims in Canada. Karl S. Hele See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Pontiac; Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix– November 1768; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Borrows, John. 1997. “Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History, and Self-Government.” In Aboriginal Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equity, and Respect for Difference, ed. Michael Asch, 155–172. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Del Papa, Eugene M. 1975. “The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect upon Virginia Land Companies.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83(4): 406–411. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 2002. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Dowd, Gregory Evans. 2002. War Under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Great Britain. Parliament. 1824. “By the King: A Proclamation.” In A Collection of the Acts Passed in the Parliament of Great Britain and of Other Public Acts Relative to Canada, 26–35. Quebec: P. E. Desbarats. Nichols, Roger L. 1998. Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Parmenter, Jon William. 1997. “Pontiac’s War: Forging New Links in the Anglo-Iroquois Covenant Chain, 1758–1766.” Ethnohistory 44(4): 617–654.

www.abc-clio.com

Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775 At the Albany Conference of 1754, the commissioners of the British colonies in North America sought an alliance with the Six Nations to fight against the French. With the growing hostility between the colonists and Great Britain in 1775, the American patriots foresaw the importance of securing the support, or at least the neutrality, of the Indian tribes along the colonial frontiers. And so, on July 12, 1775, the Continental Congress created three Departments of Indian Affairs—the Northern, the Middle, and the Southern—and appointed commissioners “with the power to treat with the Indians in their respective departments, to preserve peace and friendship, and to prevent their taking any part in the present commotions” (Journal 1836, 75). On July 13, Congress appointed Volkert P. Douw, Major-General Philip Schuyler, Colonel Turbot Francis, Colonel Oliver Wolcott, and Major Joseph Hawley to the Northern Department, the jurisdiction of which included the Six Nations and the tribes to the north of them. The following month, the northern commissioners, except for Major Hawley (who could not serve because of ill health), went to Albany, New York, where they met with the sachems and warriors of the Six Nations. There they explained the colonists’ grievances, which they attributed to King George III’s “evil” and “wicked” ministers, and asked the Six Nations to remain neutral in the war between Great Britain and the Twelve United Colonies: “We are now necessitated to rise, and forced to fight,” they told the Indian league. This “is a family quarrel,” and “You Indians are not concerned in it.” And so, “We desire you to remain at home, and not join either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep.” The commissioners also warned against English interference and, after smoking the peace pipe, told the Six Nations to acquaint their allies to the north, “the Seven Tribes on the river St. Lawrence,” with what had taken place at Albany (Journal 1836, 89–90, 91). On August 31, the Six Nations replied to the colonists, announcing that they would not “take any part, but as it is a family affair,” they would “sit still and see you fight it out . . . for we bear as much affection for the King of England’s subjects on the other side of the water, as we do for you, born upon this island.” They also said they would inform the neighboring tribes of what had been transacted at Albany and warned the Americans to keep the war outside Indian territory, to which the Americans

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada)

agreed, saying that “whatever may happen between us and our enemies, we never will injure or disturb the peace of the Six Nations, but preserve invariable the friendship that is now established, even unto death” (Journal 1836, 94, 99). After the treaty, the British and the Americans alike refrained from involving the Six Nations in their family quarrel. Hostilities increased in the summer of 1776, forcing both sides to actively pursue an alliance with the Iroquois. Divisions within the Six Nations were clearly visible, as the Mohawk chief, Joseph Brant, convinced four Iroquois nations to take up arms against the Americans. At the council meeting at Irondequoit in July 1777, the Iroquois, except the Oneida and the Tuscarora, joined the British side and officially entered the war at the Battle of Oriskany the following month. The Oneida and Tuscarora sided with the Americans and were spared when Generals John Sullivan and James Clinton marched into Iroquois territory in 1779 and attacked the Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. Internal divisions and General Washington’s scorched-earth policy regarding villages and cornfields eventually took their toll on the Iroquois Confederacy. At the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784, where the Iroquois ceded western Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky to the United States, their numbers were half of what they had been before the war. Michael A. Sletcher See also Brant, Joseph; Indian Country; Indian Territory; Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784. References and Further Reading Graymont, Barbara. 1972. The Iroquois in the American Revolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. “Journal of the Treaty Held at Albany, in August, 1775, with the Six Nations by the Commissioners of the Twelve United Colonies, Met in General Congress at Philadelphia.” 1836. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd Series, 5: 75–100. Snow, Dean R. 1994. The Iroquois. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada) In Canada, the term pre-confederation treaties refers to four groupings of treaties. The earliest group consists of the treaties commonly referred to as “peace

www.abc-clio.com

641

and friendship treaties.” Next is a group of treaties concluded between 1764 and 1836 in Upper Canada, which today forms part of the province of Ontario. The third group of treaties was also concluded with First Nations in Ontario, after the creation of the province of Canada in 1850. Finally, the Vancouver Island treaties were concluded during 1850–1854 between the First Nations on the west coast of Canada and Governor James Douglas on behalf of the Crown. Many of the peace and friendship treaties were concluded by the British Crown with First Nations whose territory lay on or close to the east coast of Canada, such as the Mi’kmaq, the Maliseet, and the Abenaki. Others were concluded by the British with First Nations in the province of Quebec, such as the Huron, the Mohawk, and the Algonquin. The focus of these treaties was peace, cessation of military hostilities, and alliances. Treaties often included guarantees on the part of the Crown to protect the rights of their First Nations allies, including rights to land and religion. In its recent decision in R. v. Marshall ([1999] 3 S.C.R. 456), the Supreme Court of Canada found that a series of peace and friendship treaties between the Crown and the Mi’kmaq in 1760 included a treaty guarantee of a right to exchange for goods the products of hunting, fishing, and harvesting. The court translated the formulation of rights in 1760 as a modern-day treaty right to earn a “moderate living” from harvesting activities, including hunting and fishing. Some peace and friendship treaties have received government recognition only in recent years. For instance, a document signed in 1760 by a representative of the British Crown guaranteed the Huron the right to their customs and religion, including the rights to hunt and to conduct activities incidental to hunting in a provincial park. The government took the position that, because the document was a unilateral, written act, it could not constitute a treaty. In its 1990 decision in R. v. Sioui ([1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the document represented solemn, bilateral undertakings between the Crown and the Huron and included a treaty right to hunt and carry on activities incidental to hunting on Crown lands. Another peace and friendship treaty that has received government recognition only recently is the Treaty of Swegatchy, concluded in 1760 between William Johnson on behalf of the British Crown and communities of the Mohawk, Abenaki, Huron, and

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

642

Commerce Clause and Native Americans

Algonquin Nations. No written copy of the Treaty of Swegatchy exists. However, in R. v. Côté, the Quebec Court of Appeal relied on later references to it by First Nations representatives, as well as numerous references to it in William Johnson’s journal, to find that it constituted a valid, existing treaty that is a continued source of rights ([1993] R.J.Q. 1350). The second group of pre-confederation treaties was negotiated in southern Ontario following the enactment of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, by which the King of Britain proclaimed that Indian lands could only be purchased by the Crown in its name through a public process. There are more than twenty-five of these treaties. Most were concluded with the Chippewa, the Mississauga, and the Ottawa Nations, although other First Nations were also involved. The purpose of these treaties for the Crown was to secure land for incoming settlers through a treaty process, in conformity with the Royal Proclamation. As with many treaties concluded between the Crown and First Nations during this period, it can be difficult to know the intentions of the First Nations in entering into treaty, for the written instruments are in English and, although interpreters were often used, at issue is the quality of the interpretation as well as the ability of the interpreters to translate concepts culturally alien to the First Nations parties. Moreover, the British records of some of the earlier treaties were inaccurate, incomplete, and sometimes even nonexistent. Thus, new treaties were required, to cover areas regarding which treaties supposedly had already been concluded. The third group of pre-confederation treaties includes the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties of 1850 as well as the Manitoulin Island Treaty of 1862. The Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties are particularly noteworthy because they became the models for treaties that were concluded after confederation in 1867. These treaties were concluded with the Ojibway, the Chippewa, and the Ottawa Nations. As with the earlier treaties in Ontario, the aim of the Crown in entering into these treaties was to open territory up for settlement. But, as with the earlier treaties, due to language and cultural obstacles it is difficult to ascertain completely the intentions of the First Nations parties. The Vancouver Island treaties were recognized as valid by Canada only about a hundred years after they were concluded. Until 1965, Canada held the position that the agreements concluded between

www.abc-clio.com

Governor Douglas on behalf of the Crown, and certain First Nations on Vancouver Island, lacked the requisite formalities to constitute treaties. In 1964, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed an earlier trial judgment in which the agreements were found to constitute valid and subsisting treaties that protected the rights to hunt and fish. The judgment of Justice Thomas Norris of the B.C.C.A. on this issue has been repeated time and again. He concluded that “ . . . treaty is not a word of art and in my respectful opinion, it embraces all such engagements made by persons in authority as may be brought within the term ‘word of the white man’ the sanctity of which was, at the time of British exploration and settlement, the most important means of obtaining the goodwill and co-operation of the Native tribes and ensuring that the colonists would be protected from death and destruction” (R. v. White and Bob [1964], 50 D.L.R. [2d] 613 at p. 649). The judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1965 (52 D.L.R. [2d] 481). Since that time, the conclusions of Justice Norris have been cited numerous times by Canada’s highest court on the issue of what constitutes a treaty between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. Anjali Choksi See also Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September 1760; Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829; Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7, 1850. References and Further Reading R. v. Côté [1993] R.J.Q. 1350; affirmed on other grounds [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139. R. v. Marshall ([1999] 3 S.C.R. 456). R. v. Sioui ([1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025). R. v. White and Bob, (1964) 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613 at p. 649. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Commerce Clause and Native Americans The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and Native American tribes. It is one of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789

the few pieces of jurisprudence giving the federal government authority over Native Americans. Laws imposed by Congress to control the Native population have a long history. Many early treaties and laws were controversial because of the limitations they placed on Native American rights. The first laws regarding Indian policy were the Trade and Intercourse Acts. These acts segregated Indians and used federally licensed agents within that population to monitor and regulate trade. Next, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 pushed the Native Americans farther west beyond the Mississippi. Over the years, these laws, along with the commerce clause of the Constitution, have plagued the Native American population. The commerce clause is the foundation of legislation passed by the U.S. government regarding the Native American population. Congress is invested with the power to collect taxes and duties in a uniform way throughout the United States. Within the Native American territories, which are scattered among various states, the power of the federal government is limited; however, beyond the boundaries of the reservation, Native Americans are subject to the same laws and punishments as everyone else. Regardless, the law states that all actions must be undertaken in good faith, that a violation of this principle authorizes a tribe to file a lawsuit against the state in a federal court. Many Native people believe that the commerce clause constitutes a violation of their civil rights, that they should not be subject to these laws, and that they should be exempt from them because of the boundaries of their reservations. Laws regarding gaming on Native American reservations are beyond the control of the federal government. Gambling with cards or slot machines in casinos is very common on reservations relative to the rest of the United States. It is difficult to run a legal casino in the United States outside Las Vegas or Atlantic City; but on the reservations, casinos have flourished because federal gaming laws had no jurisdiction prior to the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The governing powers on the almost three hundred reservations are separate tribal councils, which may or may not be similar to the state or federal government. A major reason for the high degree of gaming activity allowed by tribal councils is the generation of revenue. Gaming allows reservations, with their own forms of government, to be more economically selfsufficient.

www.abc-clio.com

643

Gaming takes place at the discretion of the tribe and under its supervision. The federal government simply allows it under the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act but has no say in the regulation of Native American casino operations. However, the state government has some power to control Class III gaming, which includes slot machines, blackjack, craps, and chance machines, all of which may be restricted by the state in which the tribe is located. Compacts can be made, but the state exercises a certain level of authority in regard to the gaming activities that take place within the compounds of the reservation. This is relevant to the commerce clause in that the federal government may still levy taxes and regulate trade in and out of the reservation. Yet, the federal government faces many limitations in dealing with the Native American population. Any drastic action undertaken by the federal government could cause controversy over civil rights issues to flare. The commerce clause allows casinos with all forms of gambling on Native American reservations. Whereas the state determines the types of operations allowable, the federal government may regulate the capital and revenue generated by the Native American tribes. Native American society is included with the rest of the United States because it must pay taxes and duties very much like all American citizens and businesses. Arthur Holst See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine. References and Further Reading Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789 On September 17, 1789, George Washington addressed the U.S. Senate on the status of earlier treaties between the United States and the Wyandot,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

644

Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789

George Washington (1732–1799) played a crucial role in the founding of the United States. He commanded American forces in the American Revolution against England, helped to ratify the U.S. Constitution, and was elected the new nation’s first president in 1789. (Library of Congress)

Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, Sac Nations, and the Six Nations (without the Mohawks), which had been concluded by Arthur St. Clair at Fort Harmar on January 9, 1789. With respect to the second clause of Article II, Section 2, of the newly framed Constitution of the United States, the president had been granted the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” The authority of the executive office to make such treaties, as Washington then understood it, included the right to negotiate treaties not only with foreign powers but also with North American Indians, or as he put it in the first sentence of the address, “It doubtless is important that all treaties and compacts formed by the United States with other nations, whether civilized or not, should be made with caution, and executed with fidelity” (Twohig 1989, 51). But Washington was still uncertain about the Senate’s role in the ratification process of these earlier treaties. On May 25, 1789, he had handed several treaties to the Senate regarding their ratification. The Senate responded on September 8, resolving that

www.abc-clio.com

“the President of the United States be advised to execute and enjoin an observance of the Treaty concluded at Fort Harmar on the 9th day of January 1789” (De Pauw 1974, 38). Uncertain of the Senate’s advice, Washington readdressed the question to them on September 17: “If by my executing that treaty,” he inquired, “you mean that I should make it (in more particular and immediate manner than it now is) the act of Government, then it follows that I am to ratify it.” But, he continued, “[I]f you mean by my executing it, that I am to see that it be carried into effect and operation, then I am led to conclude either that you consider it as being perfect and obligatory in its present state and therefore to be executed and observed, Or that you consider it as to derive its completion and obligation from the silent approbation and ratification which my proclamation may be construed to imply” (Twohig, 1989, 52). Washington thought that the Senate had intended the latter, but he was still unclear about their de facto counsel. What is more, he did not understand why the treaty with the Six Nations was not included in their response on September 8. And so he addressed the Senate on both questions, to which he received the following instructions on September 22: “that the Senate do advise and consent that the President of the United States ratify the Treaty concluded at Fort Harmar on the 9th day of January 1789, between Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the Western Territory on the part of the United States, and the Sachems and Warriors of the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippawa, Pattawatima [Potawatomi] and Sac Nations.” Regarding the treaty with the Six Nations (except the Mohawks), the Senate decided that it “may be construed to prejudice the claims of the States of Massachusetts and New York and of the Grantees under the said States respectively” and was therefore “postponed until the next session of the Senate” (De Pauw, 1974, 43). Washington proceeded to ratify the treaties and established a strong, independent role in foreign relations for the presidency; or, as one historian summed up Washington’s future foreign policy: “Thenceforth, Washington initiated foreign policy on his own, seeking no counsel from the Senate at all. Furthermore, ever after, only ‘weak’ presidents, those who entrusted foreign relations to the secretary of state, worked through the Senate as a matter of course; every ‘strong’ president like Washington has as little to do with the Senate as possible” (McDonald, 1974, 28). Michael A. Sletcher

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794

Kickapoo, and Mascoutin joined the effort. The larger confederacy agreed to seek British alliance from Canada. In July 1787, the U.S. Congress responded with the Northwest Ordinance, which reaffirmed American ownership of the region. Article III of the ordinance claimed that Indians would not be deprived of their lands or rights without consent unless by “just or lawful wars authorized by Congress.” Such claims proved hollow when Congress sold Native lands, and U.S. settlers found them occupied! The treaty at Fort Harmar in January 1789 and the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 also failed to resolve matters before conflict began. President George Washington sent a onethousand-man force, which was repelled, followed by a three-thousand-man force. On November 4, 1791, at camp on the Wabash River, this mixed U.S. force suffered a severe defeat by Indian forces. A one-

See also Fort Harmar, Ohio; St. Clair, Arthur; Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789. References and Further Reading De Pauw, Linda Grant, ed. 1974. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791, vol. 2, Senate Executive Journal and Related Documents. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. McDonald, Forrest. 1974. The Presidency of George Washington. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Twohig, Dorothy, ed. 1989. The Papers of George Washington, vol. 3, Presidential Series. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794 The Battle of Fallen Timbers on August 20, 1794, was significant not as a military classic but because it marked the initial collapse of the Indian-British alliance that had stood defiant against U.S. frontier growth in the Great Lakes or Northwest Territory region between 1783 and 1794. The defeat led to the Jay Treaty of November 1794, which allowed British evacuation to Canada, and the Treaty of Greenville on August 3, 1795, which validated U.S. settlement on lands north of the Ohio River. Afterward, Native Americans found themselves squeezed between unreliable British allies in Canada who supplied vital arms and forts, and American frontier expansion in the form of treaties, raids, and wars. Only an offensive war by British-Indian allies could hope to deflect the American population of more than three million people from full settlement of the Northwest Territory. Such hope arose with the great leader Tecumseh and the War of 1812. Historical causes of the battle began with the British defeat at Yorktown in 1781, followed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The treaty ended the American Revolutionary War and ceded the Northwest Territory to the fledgling United States. This expansion led fragmented Native tribes to cede the eastern and southern Ohio River valley to the United States in three separate treaties with the U.S. Confederacy during 1784–1786. Border raids on both sides led to a meeting on the Detroit River in December 1786 and the formation of a confederacy of many tribes. Anishinaabeg, Delaware, Iroquois, Huron, Miami, Mingo, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Wyandot, and the Wabash Confederacy of Wea, Piankashaw,

www.abc-clio.com

645

General Anthony Wayne’s American troops defeat the a force of warriors from several tribes at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in August 1794. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

646

Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811

thousand-man force of Indian confederation warriors under Little Turtle deployed with surprise in classic crescent moon formation and inflicted more than nine hundred casualties with only twenty-one Indians killed, despite the presence of U.S. cannon and the three-to-one advantage of U.S. forces. The Indian confederation now held negotiating power, and U.S. envoys assured the Wabash in a treaty on September 27, 1792, that the land was Indian and the U.S. would protect Indian interests. However, the treaty went unratified by Congress and Wabash warriors. Further treaty attempts proved futile, and the border war was renewed with vigor. The United States then formed the Legion army (5,190 men in 4 groups), trained in frontier warfare by Major General Anthony Wayne. The force departed from Fort Washington (Cincinnati) in the spring of 1794, marching north to push back the Indian confederation to British outposts. On August 20, 1794, the superior legion engaged the 400-man Indian force in a grove of fallen timber and drove it toward the British Fort Miami. However, the British refused to open the gates for their Indian allies; 9 Indian leaders were killed and their force scattered. The loss exposed British reluctance for war with the United States and broke united Indian resistance for a time. The former allies then signed two separate treaties (the Jay and Greenville treaties) allowing U.S. presence in the Northwest Territory at the cost of Native land. By 1800, there were 45,000 American settlers in Ohio, outnumbering Native Americans three to one. Chris Howell See also Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814; Battle of the Thames, 1813; Fort Harmar, Ohio; Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil; St. Clair, Arthur; Vincennes, Indiana; Wabash River, Indiana; Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789; Wayne, Anthony. References and Further Reading McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The American Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.

www.abc-clio.com

Originally published 1960 by Harper and Brothers, New York. Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977. Indian Wars. Houghton Mifflin.

Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811 The Battle of Tippecanoe took place between U.S. and Native American forces near Prophetstown in Indiana Territory on November 7, 1811. Increasing tensions between the United States and the Shawnee leaders Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa over the American policy of expansion led Indiana governor William Henry Harrison to march on Prophetstown (near the confluence of the Tippecanoe and Wabash rivers). The inhabitants of that village were followers of Tenskwatawa (Tecumseh’s brother, also known as the Shawnee Prophet) and other young warriors who supported Tecumseh’s quest to unite the Native American tribes. Tenskwatawa had promised to defer military engagement during the absence of Tecumseh, who had traveled south in an effort to mobilize the southern tribes. However, the presence of a substantial military force near the village provoked an attack before dawn on November 7. Wyandot, Kickapoo, Potawatomi, Winnebago, Ojibwa, Sac, Miami, and Shawnee warriors confronted a well-organized force of regulars and militia commanded by Governor Harrison personally. More than two hours later, the Native Americans retreated and dispersed, allowing Harrison to claim a decisive victory, raze Prophetstown, and shatter the image of the Prophet’s invincibility. Tenskwatawa had established Prophetstown in 1808 following an invitation from Main Poc of the Potawatomi. The influence of the Prophet and his more martial brother increased as they voiced criticism of the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne and made the growing village into a center for anti-American activities. During the Fort Wayne meeting, Harrison had gained substantial land concessions from government-friendly chiefs of the Delaware, Miami, Potawatomi, and other tribes. The Shawnee leaders denounced the government chiefs and denied the validity of the treaty, using it to rally the northwestern tribes against American settlement. Tecumseh wanted to unite the tribes in a confederacy strong enough to withstand American expansion, and Tenskwatawa’s prophetic religion was to function as a mobilizing force conferring religious sanction upon the budding resistance movement.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Battle of the Thames, 1813

William Henry Harrison attacked while the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, was away recruiting more warriors. The American commander reported the battle as a victory while losing many men and forcing Indians from the area. (Library of Congress)

In an 1810 meeting at Vincennes, Tecumseh demanded the return of lands, openly admitted to his plan to unite the tribes against the Americans, and threatened to kill government-friendly chiefs responsible for land cessions. By the summer of 1811, preparations were made for a major confrontation, and Tecumseh arrived in Vincennes with hundreds of warriors on his way to mobilize the southern tribes. Governor Harrison was greatly alarmed and decided to strike against Prophetstown in the absence of the Shawnee war chief. Harrison’s mixed force of regular army troops and Kentucky and Indiana militia departed from Vincennes on September 26. A stockade, named Fort Harrison, was built near the present site of Terre Haute. On October 29, the American force resumed its northward march, and by November 5 Harrison’s army stood about ten miles from Prophetstown. The next day, the governor met with representatives of the Prophet, who suggested a council the next morning and promised peace in the interim. Notwithstanding these gestures of reconciliation, Harrison’s men entered bivouac with their weapons loaded and ready to enter battle formations on a moment’s notice. Meanwhile, Tenskwatawa sought the advice of the Master of Life and offered

www.abc-clio.com

647

magic remedies to warriors preparing for a surprise attack, claiming they would be invulnerable. A select group was assigned to kill the governor himself. The battle commenced just after 4:00 p.m. when a sentry fired on approaching warriors. Some Native Americans had already penetrated the army lines, and a chaotic situation ensued. In the blinding darkness, the U.S. troops were at a disadvantage until the many campfires had been put out. Harrison soon took command and reorganized his confused forces with vigor, despite the enemy bullets that pierced his hat and shot his horse from under him. Major Joseph Daveiss led his dragoons into a brief counterattack, but he and many of his men were killed. The U.S. force, although slightly larger (probably about eight hundred troops to seven hundred warriors), was reduced to holding the lines in defensive action. Finally, at about 6:30, the Native Americans recognized the shortcomings of the Prophet’s magic and the futility of the attack. When they retreated, the battle had already claimed several hundred casualties, including approximately fifty dead on either side. The next morning, U.S. troops destroyed the abandoned Prophetstown. The dispersed warriors continued to raid frontier settlements, but they no longer believed in the magic of Tenskwatawa. The Battle of Tippecanoe and the destruction of Prophetstown did not end Tecumseh’s quest to unite the tribes, but it undermined its spiritual foundation and discredited the once powerful Prophet. Knut Oyangen See also Harrison, William Henry; Tecumseh. References and Further Reading Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Reid, Richard J. 1983. The Battle of Tippecanoe. Published by author.

Battle of the Thames, 1813 The Battle of the Thames on October 15, 1813, in British Canada ended British-Indian alliances in North America. Tecumseh, the great Shawnee leader of the pan-Indian confederacy east of the Mississippi River, died in the battle. The American victory led to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 and massive deportation of Indians to west of the Mississippi River. From the American Revolution, which ended in the Treaty of Paris in 1783, to the War of 1812, which ended with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, American

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

648

Battle of the Thames, 1813

Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, was shot at the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813. The battle was a victory for General William Henry Harrison in the War of 1812. (Library of Congress)

Indians east of the Mississippi River lost power to a fast-growing United States. The Iroquois League in New York, the Northwest Territory confederacy of 1795, Tecumseh’s Indian confederacy, and the Cherokee Nation in the Southeast lost their lands. Native people turned to spiritual prophets such as the Iroquois Handsome Lake and the Shawnee Tenskwatawa in modern Indiana. Tenskwatawa prophesied a new pan-Indian religion and drew adherents to Tippecanoe village after correctly predicting a June 16, 1806, eclipse. His brother Tecumseh, veteran of the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794, now capitalized on his brother Tenskwatawa’s success to rekindle dreams of a pan-Indian confederation. Tecumseh argued that no tribe had the right to sell land, because the lands belonged to all Indians. After whiskey-influenced tribal chiefs ceded three million acres at the Fort Wayne, Indiana, “whiskey treaty” in 1809, Tecumseh, too, drew many follow-

www.abc-clio.com

ers, and the brothers represented a serious threat to U.S. expansion. President Thomas Jefferson (served 1801–1809) had purchased the vague, huge area of Louisiana from the French in 1803 and indicated U.S. policy toward Native people east of the Mississippi River in a letter to William Henry Harrison, Indiana Territory governor and future president. Jefferson suggested that the ceding of Native lands should be promoted by encouraging Indian leaders to incur debt to trade houses and then accepting land as payment. Indians would be forced to settle on smaller plots and would either become like U.S. farmers or would be removed beyond the Mississippi River. Thus, in 1811 General Harrison led a U.S. preemptive attack on Tippecanoe while Tecumseh was rallying support from such southern tribal leaders as Alexander McGillivray of the Creek. The prophet Tenskwatawa lost prestige after he predicted victory but was turned back and his village burned. Tecum-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814

seh was then unable to convince the southern Indian tribes to join the united front and had to look again to British alliance in the War of 1812. Tecumseh and British General Isaac Brock captured the frontier posts Detroit, Dearborn (Chicago), and Michilimackinac, but British distractions with Napoleon kept British troops occupied elsewhere. British General Henry Proctor, Native commander Tecumseh, and U.S. General Harrison then engaged in siege and fort warfare in the Northwest Territory, with neither side able to remove the other. The United States remained firmly entrenched at Fort Wayne, the British at Fort Detroit, and the Native tribes controlled the lands between. The tide turned with an American naval victory on Lake Erie on September 9, 1813; Proctor abandoned western British posts for Canada, fearing he could not be supplied by British ships on the Great Lakes. Tecumseh and his Indian allies were appalled but had no choice but to accompany Proctor into Canada, as Harrison approached with more than three thousand troops. The retreat and pursuit turned into a pitched battle on October 5, 1813, on the Thames River near Moraviantown north of Lake Erie. Harrison outnumbered Tecumseh and Proctor three to one and broke the alliance center with a mounted charge by Kentucky Riflemen. Tecumseh, fighting on the flank with five hundred Indians, was surrounded and killed. Tecumseh died trying to put up a north-south continental line of European and Indian power against the American advance west. His effort was the last real attempt that had any chance of success. The Treaty of Ghent in 1814 that ended the war represented the complete loss of power by Native people east of the Mississippi River. Forced removal of the Cherokee and the Plains Indian Wars would follow. Chris Howell See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794; Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Harrison, William Henry; Indian Removal; Jefferson, Thomas; McGillivray, Alexander; Michilimackinac, Michigan; Right of Occupancy/Right of Soil; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Wabash River, Indiana. References and Further Reading McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

www.abc-clio.com

649

Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The American Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle Books. Originally published 1960 by Harper and Brothers, New York. Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977. Indian Wars. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814 The Battle of Horseshoe Bend on March 27, 1814, was a crushing military defeat for the Southeast Indian alliance during the War of 1812. These Muscogee Creek Red Stick warriors represented the last bastion of Native power east of the Mississippi River, but their fate had been sealed long before battle with the inability to form alliance with Tecumseh, the great Shawnee leader of Northwest Territory Indians. From the American Revolution (Treaty of Paris in 1783) to the War of 1812 (Treaty of Ghent in 1814), American Indians east of the Mississippi River lost power to the exploding United States. The Iroquois League in New York, the Northwest Territory confederacy of 1795, Tecumseh’s Indian confederacy, and the Cherokee Nation in the southeast lost their lands. However, while some Native people turned to spiritual prophets like the Iroquois Handsome Lake and the Shawnee Tenskwatawa, others leaders like the Creeks Alexander McGillivray and William McIntosh negotiated with local states, settlers and the U.S. federal government. Armed resistance was also turned to as in the case of Tenskwatawa’s brother, Tecumseh, who attempted to capitalize on his brother’s power and the southeast Indian quarrels by campaigning for a pan-Indian alliance from the Great Lakes to New Orleans. However, the loss of prestige by his brother at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 and splits within the southeast Indian tribes meant Tecumseh started the War of 1812 with the British and not the Muscogee Creek militants or Red Sticks as his allies. Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Cherokees in particular would not commit to Tecumseh’s alliance even though the treaty of 1790 between Creek leaders and the U.S. government proved useless in guaranteeing Creek lands. The Shawnee and Creek

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

650

Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814

The Battle of Horseshoe Bend ended the fighting in the Creek War of 1813, and resulted in the deaths of over 900 Creeks led by Chief Menawa. Major General Andrew Jackson and John Coffee defeated the Red Stick Creek at the Horseshoe Bend of the Tallapoosa River near Tohopeka on March 27, 1814. This led to the Treaty of Fort Jackson with the ceding of 20 million acres of Creek land. (North Wind Picture Archives)

were old enemies unable to unite against the U.S. settlers. The militant Creek would have to fight the War of 1812 alone and suffered devastating losses as a result. In what is called the Creek War of 1813–1814, U.S. forces under General and future President Andrew Jackson decimated the Creek confederacy. At the Battle of Holy Ground on December 23, 1813, about 750 Red Stick warriors were killed as American forces adopted Indian ways of frontier warfare with increasing success in the southeast. Muscogee Creek warriors retreated to a heavily fortified peninsula on the Tallapoosa River to await the final onslaught of Jackson’s forces. On March 27, 1814, Jackson’s American troops, some 2,500 in number, along with 500 Cherokee and Creek allies

www.abc-clio.com

attacked. The Indian allies swam across the river and stole the escape canoes of the militant Red Stick Creek before attacking them from the rear. In the end over 800 Creek were killed out of 1,000 in the fortified village. Muscogee Creek power was broken in the southeast, and the death of Tecumseh and retreat of the British in the north at the Battle of the Thames in 1813 completed the collapse of Indian and British military resistance in North America east of the Mississippi River. Tens of thousands of Native people had been killed and forcibly uprooted from their homelands in the Creek War and the War of 1812. The Treaty of Fort Jackson on August 9, 1814, followed with Creek loss of land to the U.S. Finally, the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, between the British and the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty of Ghent, 1814

Americans ended all hopes of Native power in the east. Removal of Indian tribe remnants west of the Mississippi River presented the only solution acceptable to a land hungry U.S. population now approaching ten million people. Chris Howell See also Battle of Fallen Timbers; Battle of Horseshoe Bend; Harrison, William Henry; Indian Removal; Jackson, Andrew; McGillivray, Alexander; Tippecanoe River References and Further Reading LaFeber, Walter. 1994. The American Age: U.S. Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad, 1750 to the Present. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press. Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Treaty of Ghent, 1814 The signing of the Treaty of Ghent in Belgium on December 24, 1814, signified the diplomatic termination of hostilities between the United States and the British Crown and ended the War of 1812. However, unlike the peace treaty signed in 1783 between the United States and Great Britain, the Treaty of Ghent did contain a specific article addressing tribal nations that were involved in the war. The body of the treaty addressed issues that arose before and during the War of 1812. The treaty called for the ending of hostilities on both sides and for the return of prisoners or property taken during the war; it affirmed the two countries’ mutual desire to promote the abolition of slavery, and it redefined, reconfirmed, and established territorial boundaries between the two governmental powers in accordance with either the Treaty of Paris of 1783 or the new claims in the 1814 treaty. However, as with the Treaty of Paris of 1783, no Indian nations were signatories. Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent applied directly to Indian tribes or nations that had been involved in the war. The article required both the United States and the British Crown to cease hostilities against the tribes or nations after the ratification of the treaty; it also required the tribes or nations to cease hostilities against the United States and Great Britain. The treaty called for both governments to restore all the

www.abc-clio.com

651

possessions, privileges, and rights enjoyed by the tribes or nations before the outbreak of hostilities in 1811. The Treaty of Ghent was openly contested by the United States. The treaty was not received well by General Andrew Jackson because of Article 9’s explicit direction to return lands and other possessions to the Indians. At issue, for Jackson, was a huge cession of land comprising large portions of Alabama and Georgia that had been gained during the Creek Indian War of 1813–1814. In 1814, the United States, along with several Indian allies, defeated the Red Stick Creeks at Horseshoe Bend in Alabama, ending the Creek Indian War. The defeat resulted in the Treaty of Fort Jackson in 1814. The treaty called for peace, for several concessions by the Creeks, and for the cession of more than 23 million acres of Creek land in payment for the war against the United States. Jackson refused to accede to Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent and return the Creek lands. In the face of Jackson’s adamant refusal to return the land, neither the United States nor Great Britain insisted on compliance. Thus, due to inaction on both governments, the land cession of the Treaty of Fort Jackson stood. The Treaty of Ghent greatly reduced Britain’s influence with the Indian nations. Subsequently, from 1815 to 1817, twenty-one treaties between the United States and numerous midwestern Indian nations expressly mentioned the provisions of peace and the end of hostilities as provided by Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent. These tribal nations were the Potawatomi, Piankashaw, Teton, Sioux of the Lakes, Sioux of St. Peter’s River, Yankton Sioux, Omaha, Kickapoo, Wyandot (Delaware, Seneca, Shawnee, Miami, Chippewa, and Ottawa), Osage, Sauk, Fox, Iowa, Kansa, Winnebago, Menominee, Otoe, and Ponca. Michael A. Stewart See also Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814; Harrison, William Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Tecumseh. References and Further Reading Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1972. Indian Treaties 1778–1883. Matituck, NY: Ameron House. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties The History of a Political Anomaly. Los Angeles: University of California Press. St. German, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada 1867–1877. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

652

Indian Removal Act, 1830

Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 Johnson v. M’Intosh stands as one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most significant Indian law opinions. It justified a lesser status for Indian title to land through the related doctrine of discovery and the right of conquest. Chief Justice John Marshall argued for the Court that “[i]t has never been doubted, that either the United States, or the several States, had a clear title to all the lands . . . subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.” Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the Johnson v. M’Intosh dispute were Indians or tribes; rather, they were whites competing for the same land. The plaintiffs argued that, as holders of a deed from the Piankeshaw Indians, they were entitled to the land. Marshall’s opinion, however, sided with the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right to the land before the U.S. judiciary. The case was recognized as significant at the time it was heard, for it helped resolve the status of land purchased from Indians. The case’s importance has not declined: “Johnson v. M’Intosh is at the root of title for most real property in the United States” (Bobroff 2001). The European nations and the United States, stepping into Europe’s shoes through independence, had independent rights to land that other European nations needed to respect through the doctrine of discovery. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” Furthermore, Marshall wrote, the Indians, though “the rightful occupants,” possessed “impaired” rights to the land “and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.” Johnson v. M’Intosh insisted that the doctrine of discovery gave the United States a claim to the land against other European nations, which, when coupled with the right of conquest, ensured that the United States, not the Indians, held the final rights to land. Marshall explained, “Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted.” Though his writing at times appears to be apologetic, concerned with the original justice of the

www.abc-clio.com

claim, Marshall does “find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.” The rationalization for the doctrine of discovery and the right of conquest contained in Johnson v. M’Intosh is found in racial imagery and a sense of the inevitable. Marshall writes, “[The] Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest . . .they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce. . . . Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed.” The outcome of the case is based in part on a sense that “[u]nalterable facts [of conquest] gave rise to mandate” (Robertson 1997). Thus, Johnson v. M’Intosh would become the legal precedent that permitted differing treatment of Indian land rights and clothed in judicial robes the maxim “Might makes right.” Ezra Rosser See also Aboriginal Title; Doctrine of Discovery; Right of Conquest; Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil. References and Further Reading Bobroff, Kenneth H. 2001. “Symposium: Indian Law in Property: Johnson v. M’Intosh and Beyond,” 37 Tulsa Law Review 521. Frickey, Philip P. 1993. “Marshalling the Past and Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and Interpretation in Federal Indian Law,” 107 Harvard Law Review 381. Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 8 Wheat 543 (1823). Kades, Eric. 2001. “History and Interpretation of the Great Case of Johnson v. M’Intosh,” 19 Law and History Review 67. Robertson, Lindsay G. 1997. “John Marshall as Colonial Historian: Reconsidering the Origins of the Discovery Doctrine,” 13 Journal of Law and Politics 759, 761.

Indian Removal Act, 1830 The Indian Removal Act was promoted by President Andrew Jackson (served 1829–1837) and passed on May 28, 1830. The act aimed “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi” (U.S. Statutes at Large, 1830). The amount of $500,000 was allocated to support the land negotiations. Its main purpose was to acquire

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Removal Act, 1830

more land for white settlements in states east of the Mississippi River while guaranteeing Indian rights to western land. To this end, Congress set the Indian Territory (encompassing land west of Arkansas, Missouri, and east of Mexican territory) under the Indian Intercourse Act (1834). Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1804 by President Jefferson, opportunities for settlements west of the Mississippi swelled. Arkansas Territory was established in 1819, Missouri in 1821. Meanwhile, the Committee on Indian Affairs was created (1824) within the War Department. The constant flow of settlers into Indian land led to numerous battles (the Creek War of 1813 in Alabama, the Seminole War of 1817–1818 in northern Florida, the Red Bird War of 1827 in Wisconsin). Eventually, each conflict resulted in defeat for the Indians, who ceded more land to the U.S. government through treaties. By the 1820s, it had become clear that pioneers were not willing to tolerate cohabitation with Indians. Moreover, land speculators perceived the Indians as an impediment to territorial expansion. Ultimately, Georgia challenged the Cherokees to leave the state. However, the Cherokee—one of the Five Civilized Tribes, along with the Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole—adopted a formal constitution (1827) asserting the tribe’s sovereignty and its protection solely under the U.S. government. The Georgia legislature argued, in turn, that the Cherokees were merely renting the land, as the United States had been established after Great Britain’s sovereign possessions. These ongoing tensions led President Jackson to view the removal of all Indians from pioneers’ land as the only viable solution. The Removal Act passed in the House of Representatives by a small majority, 102 to 97 (Cave 2003). Northern tribes, including the Potawatomi, were resettled in western lands after signing eightysix removal treaties between 1829 and 1851 (Prucha 1994). Although the act seemingly precluded “violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes” (U.S. Statutes at Large, 1830), it nonetheless was a direct abuse of Indian sovereignty. In the South, after the Choctaws agreed to their removal in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830, some tribes who were most rooted to the land through farms and trade practices fought the removals in violent uprisings. The Cherokees refused to sign a removal treaty and challenged it before the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Despite his

www.abc-clio.com

653

acknowledgment that Georgia had no jurisdiction over Cherokee territory and no claim to their lands, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that Indian tribes were “domestic dependent nations” rather than sovereign nations (Prucha 1994). This decision paved the way for the enforcement of the removal policy and eventually for subsequent litigation affecting Indians. A minority of Cherokees signed the Treaty of New Echota (1835), ceding all their land for $5 million. They were given two years to move voluntarily to Indian Territory. Some Seminoles, refusing to sign the removal Treaty of Payne’s Landing (1832), fought in the Second Seminole War (1835–1842). Certain Creeks, as well, rejected the removal treaty of 1832, resulting in the Creek War (1835–1836). Finally, the Cherokees who defied removal were coerced by the U.S. military to march to Indian Territory. During the fall and winter of 1838–1839, about four thousand Cherokees died in the appalling conditions on the infamous “Trail of Tears.” Indian Territory had a quasi-autonomous government until the creation of Oklahoma in 1907. Whereas the proponents for removal believed this was a humanitarian act preventing Indians from disappearing, opponents—including the Whig Party and Jeremiah Evarts, a Christian missionary— sharply criticized the government’s greed for cheap land, as well as the corruption and fraud that swayed the negotiations and the application of removal treaties. In a message to Congress in 1829, President Andrew Jackson declared that “our conduct toward these people” reflected on “our national character” (Cave 2003). Céline Swicegood See also Aboriginal Title; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Removal; Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823; Mitchel v. United States, 1835; Trail of Tears; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Cave, Alfred. 2003. “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830.” Historians 65(6): 1330–1353. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press. Remini, Robert. 2001. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. Viking. Rogin, Michael. 1975. Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. United States Statutes at Large. 1830. 21st Congress, 1st Session, 28 May.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

654

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Supreme Court denied that the Cherokee constituted a sovereign nation and effectively made the tribe into wards of the United States. The case evolved out of attempts by the state of Georgia to assert jurisdiction over Native American lands that were protected by a federal treaty; ultimately, it involved the question of the power of the federal judiciary to review state legislative decisions. The decision, a landmark in federal Indian law, defined the status of all Native American tribes within the United States. By the 1830s, the Cherokee Nation had lost a tremendous amount of power. Warfare, treaties, federal trade policies, and assimilation had served to weaken Cherokee society significantly. The tribe had fallen back into the mountains of northern Georgia and western North Carolina, onto land guaranteed to them in 1791 by a treaty with the United States. To the state of Georgia, however, the Cherokee remained a problem. When Georgia ceded its western lands in 1802, it obtained a promise from the federal government that all Indian territorial rights within the state would be terminated. State legislators committed themselves to the removal of the Cherokee through an official policy of harassment. In 1828, Georgia passed a law stipulating that, after June 1, 1830, the authority of state law would extend over the Cherokee living within its boundaries. In 1829, the discovery of gold in Cherokee territory gave additional impetus to the drive to extinguish Indian title to Georgia land. Georgia attempted to extend state jurisdiction over the Cherokee through laws that specifically targeted the Indians with the aim of destroying the political, economic, and social structure of their nation. This legislation, which easily passed, set out to nullify all Cherokee law, to prohibit meetings of the tribal council, and, perhaps most importantly, to claim and redistribute the lands of the Cherokee to Georgians. Georgia also established a police force, the Georgia Guard, to patrol Cherokee lands. The police devoted their energies to attacking the Cherokees, arresting Principal Chief John Ross, and destroying a Cherokee printing press. The Cherokee protested that Georgia had violated treaties between the Native Americans and the U.S. government that acknowledged tribal sovereignty. To maintain control of their republic, the Cherokee resolved to battle Georgia through the legal system.

www.abc-clio.com

According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court is assigned to hear disputes arising between a state and a foreign power. The Cherokee Nation, as a foreign power, petitioned the Court in 1831 to invoke its jurisdiction and grant an injunction barring enforcement of Georgia’s jurisdiction laws within Cherokee territory. Two highly distinguished white attorneys, John Sergeant and William Wirt, represented the Cherokee when oral arguments before the Court began on March 11, 1831. Georgia officials, bearing in mind that Article VI of the Constitution forbids any state law that supersedes federal treaties, denied that the Cherokee had any right to stand before the Court. The Georgians refused to acknowledge the papers served on them by John Ross and did not speak in oral arguments before the Court. They did attempt to weaken the power of the federal judiciary by seeking congressional support for a bill limiting the Supreme Court’s power to review state legislative decisions. The Supreme Court sought to craft a compromise that preserved the rule of law while maintaining the right of Americans to conquer lands. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear a Cherokee request to enjoin Georgia’s efforts. Writing for the majority, he defined the Cherokee as a “domestic, dependent nation” rather than a sovereign nation for purposes of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The deeply divided Court never addressed the Cherokee argument that Georgia had violated treaty agreements and the Constitution. Despite the dozens of international treaties signed over the course of many years by the United States and various Indian nations, the Supreme Court decided that Native Americans could not form a foreign nation. The decision resulted in the creation of a continent-wide real estate law that favored the federal government while diminishing the rights of Native Americans. Caryn E. Neumann

ABC-CLIO

See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Aaseng, Nathan. 2000. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. San Diego: Lucent Books. Norgren, Jill. 1996. The Cherokee Cases: The Confrontation of Law and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1-800-368-6868

Worcester v. Georgia, 1832

655

Wilkins, Thurman. Cherokee Tragedy: The Ridge Family and the Decimation of a People. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 In Worcester v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court voided Georgia laws that restricted activities within Cherokee territory on the grounds that such legislation violated the terms of federal treaties as well as the contract and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. This court case, an attempt by the Cherokees to maintain sovereignty in the wake of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia loss, formed part of the Cherokee resistance to removal. Eager to acquire Cherokee lands, the state of Georgia had determined to force the Cherokees to agree to removal. As part of its campaign of harassment against the Native Americans, Georgia passed a law on December 22, 1830, that required all white men to take an oath and obtain a special permit from the state to live in Cherokee territory. The legislation targeted educators and missionaries who supported the rights of the Native Americans. The Cherokee Nation, recognized in federal treaties as a sovereign nation, had its own system for regulating commerce and visitations with non-Indians residing in Georgia. Accordingly, the Cherokees strongly objected to the attempt of Georgia to ignore Cherokee sovereignty and impose its own regulations. Three Protestant missionaries from the large and prominent American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions who had been active in recording and preserving Cherokee culture refused to submit to the new law. Friendly to the Cherokees, these men announced their opposition to Cherokee removal, and the Georgia militia promptly entered Cherokee territory to arrest them. The men, who included group spokesperson Reverend Samuel Austin Worcester and Reverend Elizur Butler, were released when they claimed protection as federal employees. The administration of President Andrew Jackson indicated its support for Georgia’s position by terminating the mens’ jobs, including Worcester’s position as postmaster. The militia returned and arrested ten missionaries on July 15, 1831, on charges of “residing in the Cherokee Nation without licenses.” They were beaten, chained, and forced to march thirty-five miles a day to the Gwinnett County jail. Eight ministers gained pardons when

www.abc-clio.com

Samuel A. Worcester (1798–1859) was born at Peacham, Vermont. He served as a missionary to the Cherokee Nation and refused to follow Georgia law, resulting in the court case, Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. (Library of Congress)

they agreed to abide by Georgia’s laws, but Worcester and Butler refused to submit to the state. Both clergymen were tried in Gwinnett County Superior Court on September 15, 1831, in State v. Missionaries and were found guilty. Sentenced to four years at hard labor in the state penitentiary at Milledgeville, they began serving their sentences while the Cherokees hired attorney William Wirt to appeal their cases. Wirt, who had served as U.S. attorney general under Presidents James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, petitioned the Supreme Court for redress. As it had in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the state insisted that the Cherokees had no standing in federal court and refused to participate in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. On March 3, 1832, the Court ruled against Georgia by deciding that Worcester and Butler had been arrested and imprisoned under an unconstitutional law. Chief Justice John Marshall, in a majority opinion that declared all of Georgia’s anti-Cherokee legislation illegal, concluded that Georgia had violated the authority of the United States and the political rights of the Cherokees. The Court declared that the 1785 Treaty of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

656

Mitchel v. United States, 1835

Hopewell and 1791 Treaty of Holston explicitly acknowledged the right of the Cherokees to selfgovernment. It issued a mandate to the Georgia Superior Court ordering it to reverse its decision and free the missionaries. The decision affirmed American recognition of Native American sovereignty as well as the right of Indian nations to occupy their territory and control the transfer of their lands, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Georgia would not tolerate a sovereign Cherokee nation within its boundaries and ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling. Governor Wilson Lumpkin declared that he would rather hang the missionaries than release them. (He eventually discharged them.) Georgia court officials insisted that the federal court had overreached its authority and refused to reverse their decision. President Jackson, no friend of Native Americans, weighed in on the dispute by purportedly saying privately that Marshall had made his decision and he (Marshall) could now enforce it. Jackson refused to take any action to help the Cherokees. Under the circumstances, the Indians had few other options except to sign a removal treaty, which they did in 1835. By 1838, the majority of Cherokees had departed on the “Trail of Tears” to Oklahoma. Caryn E. Neumann See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian Removal; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading Norgren, Jill. 1996. The Cherokee Cases: The Confrontation of Law and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reid, John Philip. 1970. A Law of Blood: The Primitive Law of the Cherokee Nation. New York: New York University Press. Woodward, Grace Steele. 1963. The Cherokees. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Mitchel v. United States, 1835 In Mitchel v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that aboriginal title has force in U.S. law and that claims succeeding from the transfer of that title, when licensed by the proper governing official, will be deemed legally valid. Specifically, Mitchel stands for the proposition that U.S. rights of ownership to Indian lands are subject to the right of occupation of those tribes to lands in their continuous possession and use, and that this right can only be extinguished when the tribe, with federal approval, voluntarily alienates that land.

www.abc-clio.com

Like Johnson v. M’Intosh (21 U.S. 543; 5 L. Ed. 681, 1823), which is cited as precedent in Mitchel, the underlying issue involves a dispute between the United States and a private party over lands purchased from tribes in territory that had been under foreign colonial rule. In this case, the petitioners (Colin Mitchel and others) had purchased 1.2 million acres of land from an English company that had originally been granted the land from the Creek and Seminole tribes in 1804 and 1806 in sales confirmed by the Spanish governor of the Florida Territory. These sales were valid under Spanish law and were intended to discharge the debts owed to the company for losses the company incurred while doing trade with the tribes. The U.S. government objected to the legality of the petitioners’ claims on various grounds, among them that the tribes had no title, under Spanish law, that they could have transferred to the company. The government argued that any right of occupation that the tribes may have had was extinguished by the Treaty of Picolata in 1765, into which the tribes entered with Great Britain when it took possession of the Florida Territory, and that this extinguishment carried forward when Spain acquired Florida via its treaty of 1783 with Britain. Moreover, the United States claimed, even if the tribes did retain title in occupancy, the original sales of 1804 and 1806 were invalid because the governor of the Florida Territory did not possess the authority under Spanish law to confirm that sale. Thus, the United States argues that, when it acquired the Florida Territory in the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819 with Spain, it took clear title to all the lands claimed by Mitchel and his fellow petitioners. Pursuant to a congressional act in 1828 to settle Florida private land claims, Mitchel and others petitioned the Superior Court of Middle Florida to hear their case. In 1830, the court found that their claims were not based on a valid transfer of title and dismissed their petitions. The petitioners appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which entered the appeal in January 1831. The Supreme Court reversed the Florida court’s decision. In its opinion, Justice Henry Baldwin points to the long recognition, under English law, of an aboriginal right of occupation held by Indian tribes to lands they possessed under British colonial rule, and the continuation of that right under Spanish law. The opinion reads, “[O]ne uniform rule seems to have prevailed . . . that friendly Indians were protected in the possession of the lands they

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Trail of Tears

occupied . . . that their right of occupancy is considered as sacred as the fee simple to the whites” (34 U.S. 711, 746–747). Moreover, because the possessory rights of the tribes were recognized as valid by the Spanish officers who publicly confirmed their sale to the English company, they were deemed sufficiently notorious to have put the United States on notice of their existence when it entered into the treaty of 1819 with Spain. As such, the federal government’s claims could not supersede the claims of the petitioners, whose title to the lands was purchased in 1811 from the English company. It may be argued that this case speaks less to the status of aboriginal title under U.S. law and rather more to the requirement that government officials must authorize any effort by Indian tribes to alienate that title. At the same time, the case explicitly recognizes the extent to which a tribe’s aboriginal right to occupation “could not be taken without their consent . . . until they abandoned them, made a cession to the government, or an authorized sale to individuals” (34 U.S. 711, 746). Whatever force this opinion may still have, it is nonetheless true that unless “recognized” in a federal treaty or statute, federal extinguishment of aboriginal title without the consent of the tribe will not give rise to a right of compensation under the Fifth Amendment (Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S., 348 U.S. 272; 99 L. Ed. 314, 1955). Justin B. Richland See also Aboriginal Title; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian Removal Act; Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading Missal, John, and Mary Lou Missal. 2004. The Seminole Wars: America’s Longest Indian Conflict. Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Boca Raton, Pensacola, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville and Fort Myers: University Press of Florida. Mitchel v. United States, 34 U.S. 711; 9 L. Ed. 283 (1835). Norgreen, Jill. The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty. 2003. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Smith, Jean Edward. 1996. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. New York: Henry Holt.

Trail of Tears Also known as “the trail where they cried,” the Trail of Tears refers to the removal of the Cherokee Indians from their homes in Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina along a forced march to the newly

www.abc-clio.com

657

organized Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) in 1838. It is generally accepted that approximately four thousand Cherokees perished in the long journey, although some scholars have suggested that the number could well have been twice that (Anderson 1991, 75–95). Ordered by President Martin Van Buren, the removal effort that came to be known as the Trail of Tears was a direct result of Andrew Jackson’s policy of removal and the Indian Removal Act passed by Congress in 1830. This general act required individual treaties to be signed with each tribe, and in the case of the Cherokee, it was the blatantly fraudulent Treaty of New Echota in 1835 that led to their eventual removal. Despite facing stiff resistance in Congress, the treaty was eventually passed by a slim margin; upon its ratification, the United States assumed title to the entire Cherokee Nation. Ostensibly, removal was to be voluntary, but by 1838 only two thousand of the estimated eighteen thousand to twenty thousand members of the Cherokee Nation had left of their own volition. President Van Buren’s patience soon ran out, leading him to order a forced removal effort under the direction of General Winfield Scott. All Cherokees who remained in their eastern homes were rounded up, corralled in military stockades, and then forced westward in a march that began in October 1838. To make matters worse, the limited funds promised to provide food and supplies for the Cherokee were often never delivered or were subject to graft on the part of officials and suppliers charged with those responsibilities. In the end, disease, hunger, exhaustion, and freezing temperatures took their toll, resulting in the deaths of thousands in the camps and during the migration. The tragedy suffered by the Cherokee was representative of the fate that befell a number of other Southeastern tribes during the 1830s and 1840s— many of which endured their own versions of the Trail of Tears. The term itself actually originated with the removal of the Choctaw from their homes in Mississippi following the passage of the dubiously executed Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830. In a series of forced removals from 1831 to 1833, approximately twelve thousand to thirteen thousand Choctaws were marched west to new homes in the Indian Territory; more than two thousand perished along the way due to repeated epidemics of dysentery and cholera, meager supplies and funding, and freezing temperatures (Green 1978, 8–9). In 1837, the Chickasaws were removed from their territory in Alabama; the Creeks and Seminoles would also

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

658

Trail of Tears

Ordered by the American government to leave their homelands after the passage of the Indian Removal Act, Cherokee made the long trek from the southeastern United States to the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) during 1838–1839. Approximately 4,000 died of exhaustion, illness, and starvation along the way, prompting the Cherokee to name the forced march the Trail of Tears. (Woolaroc Museum, Bartlesville, Oklahoma)

eventually be removed following their own struggles with the federal government. As grievous as each of these events was, however, it was the Cherokee removal that burned the name “Trail of Tears” into the psyches of Americans, and it is the Cherokee experience that is so often associated with the infamous expression. The tragic scale of the Trail of Tears has made it one of the most widely studied events in the history of American Indian policy and its effects on Native peoples. Interpretations of the policies, treaties, and ideologies that led to the Trail of Tears have ranged from charges of outright genocide to relatively apologetic characterizations of the motivations driving Andrew Jackson and other removal proponents as lamentably misguided benevolence. To be sure, avowed removal proponents such as Michigan’s governor Lewis Cass echoed social theorists of the time with protestations that the only way to save Indians from extinction was to move them beyond the reach of unscrupulous whites. This paternalistic

www.abc-clio.com

beneficence preached by Cass and others saturated much of Andrew Jackson’s speeches on removal, but it would be naïve to believe that altruism alone was at the heart of removal efforts. Ultimately, the discovery of gold in northern Georgia fueled the already insatiable hunger for Indian lands, while issues of states’ rights vis-à-vis Indian sovereignty polarized the debates over removal even further. For the Cherokee in particular, these issues combined to create a climate that ultimately rendered moot a petition signed by approximately sixteen thousand Cherokees declaring that the Treaty of New Echota was not representative of their desires, the considerable public support that arose out of the debates, and a favorable Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia), which ruled Georgia’s removal laws illegal. All of these efforts went for naught, and the Trail of Tears thus became the defining event of a notorious chapter in the history of white-Indian relations. Bradley J. Gills

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848

See also Cass, Lewis; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi; Domestic Dependent Nation; Indian Removal; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Territory; Jackson, Andrew; New Echota, Georgia; Opothleyahola; Osceola; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge, Major; Ross, John; Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835; Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830; Watie, Stand; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Anderson, William L., ed. 1991. Cherokee Removal: Before and After. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Green, Len. 1978. “Choctaw Removal Was Really a ‘Trail of Tears.’” Bishinik: The Official Publication of the Choctaw Nation, November, 1978: 8–9. McLoughlin, William G. 1993. After the Trail of Tears: The Cherokees Struggle for Sovereignty, 1839–1880. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. New York: St. Martins Press. Wallace, Anthony F.C. 1993. The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill & Wang.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, negotiated for the United States by diplomat Nicholas Philip Trist (1800–1874), ended the Mexican-American War and was signed at the village of Guadalupe Hidalgo near Mexico City on February 2, 1848. Article IX of the treaty outlined the protection of civil rights extended to Mexican citizens living in the newly conceded area, thus making them a part of the United States. The treaty granted the United States more than five hundred thousand square miles of territory, or nearly half of the Republic of Mexico. Along with the Gadsden Purchase (1853), the ceded area eventually became the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and granted the U.S. demand that Mexico recognize the Río Grande as the southern border of Texas. Mexican officials negotiated furiously with Trist to win concessions to protect the rights of Mexicans living in the region. Article IX attempted to extend further the civil rights of Mexican citizens living in the area by giving them the option to return to Mex-

www.abc-clio.com

659

ico with their property or to remain in the United States as U.S. citizens. Many Anglos in the United States felt that the citizenship provisions in the treaty were too liberal, as they provided U.S. citizenship to a rather large percentage of people living in the territories during a period when U.S. law limited naturalization to free “white” immigrants. Some argued that those remaining in the newly acquired territories required further action by Congress to become citizens. This ambiguous citizenship status became especially glaring after the discovery of gold in California. Suddenly, thousands of people rushed to the area, directly competing against the Nativeborn miners for the best mining locations. Lynching, harassment, and other abuses of those not considered citizens forced several countries, including the Republic of Mexico, to lodge formal diplomatic protests against the U.S. government. Mexico often referred to Article IX in those protests, citing the formal citizenship granted to its former citizens. Most people in the United States did not view Mexicans living in the California territory as citizens; as Mexico viewed them as citizens of another country. They often lived without the juridical protection of either government. While those of Spanish ancestry suffered under the new treaty, Indians suffered even more abuse. Since 1812, Mexico had offered citizenship to “civilized” Indians, and the Mexican Constitution of 1824 extended full citizenship to them. While Article IX plainly granted U.S. citizenship to all Mexican citizens living in the transferred territories, it was not long before states began to enact constitutions that excluded blacks and Indians while recognizing some Mexicans. During these years, American states determined their own requirements for citizenship and often exercised this power to exclude minorities from citizenship. Those without the right to actively participate in the political arena seldom enjoyed the benefit of civil rights, and under U.S. laws Indians and “half-breeds” were not considered citizens. Indians were given neither citizenship nor the protections listed in Articles VIII or IX of the treaty. Although the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, it failed to ensure the status and rights of Mexicans and Indians living in the territory conceded to the United States. Indeed, it can be argued that these populations have yet to gain full citizenship. Robert O. Marlin IV

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

660

California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1853

See also Gadsden, James; Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Treaty. References and Further Reading Griswold del Castillo, Richard. 1990. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mahin, Dean B. 1997. Olive Branch and Sword: The United States and Mexico, 1845–1848. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. United States. “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico.” February 2, 1848. U.S.-Mex., United States Statutes at Large 9, pt. 922.

California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1852 Many scholars and Indian activists have used the eighteen unratified treaties made in California to demonstrate how shoddily the state treated its indigenous population after the American gold rush. Negotiated in good faith, the treaties faced tremendous opposition from mining and agricultural interests in the state and died in a “secret session” of Congress. Even though the end result may have been more procedural than deliberately malicious, the eighteen unratified California treaties stand as an example of a turbulent period in the state’s history and tell us much about how non-Indians viewed the state’s Native population. The year 1848 brought innumerable changes to California. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War and added the American Southwest to the United States. This included California, with its history of missions and ranchos, where California Indians lived with and worked for Spanish and Mexican settlers. That same year, the discovery of gold on the American River touched off an international and domestic migration to the state. At first, Indians found opportunities to mine for themselves in the gold rush; more frequently, they worked in gangs mining for wealthy landowners such as John Sutter and John Bidwell. This violation of free labor sensibilities, along with the fear of Indians on the part of many miners (generated on the Overland Trail) and Indian attacks in Oregon, prompted miners and state militias to begin a campaign to eradicate California Indians from the mines. Surely something had to be done to protect the state’s Indian population. In 1850, the U.S. Senate dispatched three agents to California. From the outset, these three men—

www.abc-clio.com

Oliver Wozencraft, George Barbour, and Redick McKee—had conflicting orders. The Senate appropriations bill that authorized their expedition did not specifically permit them to make treaties; later, the secretary of the interior authorized them to do so. The trio traveled throughout the state and consummated eighteen treaties with California Indians. Wozencraft stayed in southern California, Barbour worked in central California, and McKee made the arduous journey to northern California. The treaties resembled those of the 1850s: They provided a land base for California Indians out of their existing homelands, and Indians agreed to move to these areas. They provided instruments of assimilation (domesticated livestock, teachers, farm implements, etc.), and the Natives recognized the United States as their protector. In the end, these eighteen treaties reserved 7.5 million acres for California Indians. Once California Indians signed the treaties, many moved to what they thought were their new homes. Almost immediately, non-Indian Californians protested the treaties. They objected to the amount of land set aside for Indians and warned that it might take too much potential agricultural and mining land out of the hands of productive, white citizens. Also, they argued that California’s unique history—in which Indians and non-Indians lived and worked together—made removing Indians to a reservation unnecessary, if not destructive of the state’s agricultural economy. Finally, opponents cited shady dealings between the agents and those who were supposed to provide food and supplies to the reservations. For instance, McKee signed a contract with his son to provide cattle for Indians, and Barbour made a dubious cattle contract with John C. Frémont. The U.S. Senate acceded to these complaints. In 1852, the Senate retired to executive session, debated the treaties without public input, and tabled the documents, effectively killing them. Without treaties, California Indians were in a precarious position, at the whim of state citizens who cared little about them and a state government that ensured their virtual enslavement. In 1850, California passed the nefarious Act for the Government and Protection of the Indians. Amended later, the act allowed for the forced indenture of Indian children. After the Senate killed the treaties, the federal government created a number of temporary military reservations. These lands were temporary (if whites wanted them in the future, they could evict the Indians); they were voluntary for Indians, and they were to be self-sustaining through Indian labor. Between

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Long Walk, 1864

1853 and 1858, federal Indian commissioners Edward F. Beale and Thomas J. Henley created seven temporary Indian reservations throughout the state. These suffered from a lack of funding, corruption on the part of Beale and Henley, and the heinous actions of non-Indians living on the reservation’s borders. Although some of these reservations were indeed temporary, others, such as the Round Valley Reservation, were recognized by executive order and received full standing with reservations established by treaty. The unratified treaties in California left a lasting impact on the state’s Indian population. Although not necessarily unique in that the Senate rejected the treaties (many treaties signed with Indians in Oregon, Washington, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico were similarly rejected), they created a situation in which most California Indians lived off reservations. Until the early twentieth century, the state and federal government wrestled with this population. Moreover, the treaties stand as a reminder that the state and federal governments virtually ignored and exploited the state’s Indian population. William Bauer See also California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848; United States v. Kagama, 1886. References and Further Reading Hurtado, Albert L. 1988. Indian Survival on the California Frontier. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian Treaty Myth.” Southern California Quarterly 55(Fall): 225–238. Phillips, George Harwood. 1997. Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1848–1852. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Rawls, James. 1984. Indians of California: The Changing Image. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Long Walk, 1864 In the summer of 1863, Brigadier General James Henry Carleton—General Edward Richard Sprigg Canby’s successor as head of Union forces in New Mexico—caused great change in the Native Southwest. He ordered Christopher Houston Carson, commonly known as “Kit,” an experienced trapper, trader, army scout, and Indian agent in the Rocky Mountain West to amass and remove the Diné (the Navajos) from their Native homeland in northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona. They

www.abc-clio.com

661

were moved to a remote reservation on the Pecos River in eastern New Mexico known as the Bosque Redondo. Carson’s campaign against the Navajos culminated in the Long Walk—a forced march consisting of several episodes of compulsory removal that began as early as 1863 and ended in 1866. Soon after his appointment as commander of the Department of New Mexico, Carleton, who was determined to bring an end to Native resistance in the area, unleashed an aggressive crusade against the Mescalero Apaches and Navajos in an effort to isolate, remove, and incarcerate the two tribes—traditional enemies—together on a reservation. The Diné, in retaliation for perceived wrongs enacted against them, raided other tribes—primarily the Pueblos—and non-Indian settlers, including Mexicans and newly arrived European Americans, for decades before Carleton demanded their riddance. In addition to the seeming Navajo menace, Carleton wished to eliminate any obstacle that could potentially threaten mining aspirations in the Southwest. Although Kit Carson did not lead the threehundred-mile trek to the Bosque Redondo, he successfully breached the Navajo stronghold at Canyon de Chelly in January 1864 (after effectively subjugating a number of Mescaleros) and launched a scorched-earth campaign that resulted in little loss of life but nevertheless wreaked havoc on the Navajos, compelling them to surrender. Prior to the Canyon de Chelly expedition, Carson reported little success in his quest to round up the Navajos. Instead, members of the tribe typically evaded capture and escaped to distant areas of Diné Bikéyah, such as the canyon gorge behind Navajo Mountain that is known today as Glen Canyon. Although Carson’s 1863 campaign sent some Navajos to Hwéeldi—also referred to as the Bosque Redondo—his accomplishments in 1864 at Canyon de Chelly turned the tide in favor of the United States and resulted in the removal of several thousand Diné. The Long Walk consisted of a series of removals that lasted for three years and became a pivotal event in the history and culture of the Navajo, like the Cherokee’s Trail of Tears, which occurred thirtyfour years earlier. The trip to Hwéeldi followed different routes but typically began at Fort Wingate, near present-day Gallup, New Mexico, moved west toward Albuquerque and then southeast to the flat, barren, treeless plains of the Pecos River valley near the army outpost of Fort Sumner. Navajo oral accounts and soldiers’ reports detail the hardships

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

662

Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867

endured by the Diné during the three-hundred-mile, journey on foot to the Bosque Redondo. Many stories recount the harsh environmental conditions, including cold weather, heavy snow, and little or no water. Participants in the Long Walk also suffered from starvation and disease brought about by contaminated food. Furthermore, government testimonies and Navajo histories tell of problems with Mexican citizens whose hatred for the Navajos turned into violence as the Diné marched across New Mexico. In addition to exposure, lack of food, sickness, and hostilities from neighboring peoples, the Navajos suffered injustices at the hands of the soldiers. Gus Bighorse, a Navajo warrior who fought against Kit Carson’s troops but was removed to Hwéeldi with Manuelito in 1865, told his children, “People are shot on the spot if they say they are tired or sick or if they stop to help someone. If a woman is in labor with a baby, she is killed. . . . They are heartbroken because their families die on the way” (Bighorse 1990, 28–35). If they survived the trek across New Mexico, life at the Bosque Redondo proved to be just as dismal. Upon the Navajos’ arrival at their new home, the Diné fought with their traditional Apache enemies, who were already there, and suffered tremendously from hunger and disease. Carleton’s idea of settling the Navajos (and Mescaleros) on a faraway reservation proved to be consistent with mid-nineteenth-century paternalistic theories of the best way to deal with hostile tribes. During the early 1860s, many Americans, including government officials and humanitarians, believed that reservations would segregate and assimilate Indian peoples, helping them to achieve the ultimate goal of “civilization”—a sedentary lifestyle firmly rooted in education, Christianity, and agriculture. Ironically, reservations sometimes developed into cultural enclaves that enabled Native peoples to maintain their languages and cultivate strong tribal identities. The Long Walk and life at the Bosque Redondo encouraged the Navajos, traditionally divided into clans, to develop a common identity based upon their haunting experiences as a tribe. Recognizing its failed attempt to turn the Navajos into Christian farmers, the U.S. government allowed the tribe to return to its homeland in 1868. The several thousand Navajos who had evaded capture and remained on the western and northwestern fringes of Diné Bikéyah strengthened the tribes’ claims to the area and permitted the Navajos to extend their land base in the Treaty of 1868. Sonia Dickey

www.abc-clio.com

See also Barboncito; Canyon de Chelly, Arizona; Carson, Kit; Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Manuelito; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868. References and Further Reading Bailey, Lynn R. 1964. The Long Walk: A History of the Navajo Wars, 1846–1868. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. Bighorse, Tianna, and Noel Bennett., eds. 1990. Bighorse the Warrior. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Dunlay, Tom. 2000. Kit Carson and the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Roessel, Ruth, and Broderick H. Johnson, eds. 1973. Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo Community College Press.

Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867 Connolly v. Woolrich (1 Canadian Native Law Cases 70–243) is one of the earliest judgments in Canada that examines the validity and effect of aboriginal custom and law—in this case the customs of the Cree Nation on the institution of marriage. The judgment of the Quebec Superior Court was rendered in July of 1867 and that of the appellate court in 1869. The case was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England but was settled out of court before it was heard by that judicial body. The most interesting judgment is that of the Quebec Superior Court, which in essence was approved by the appellate court. The facts giving rise to this landmark case arose in the early part of the nineteenth century. In 1803, William Connolly, a trader born in the area of Montreal, traveled west to the Northwest Territories, an area which today forms part of northern Manitoba. He was seventeen years old. William Connolly married a Cree girl named Suzanne according to the customs and laws of the Cree Nation and lived with her in an exclusive relationship. They had six children. Together, in 1831, they moved back to the Montreal area with some of their children. In 1832, William Connolly left his Cree wife Suzanne and married Julia Woolrich in a ceremony performed according to the laws in force in Lower Canada. He died in 1849, and in his will he bequeathed all of his property to Julia Woolrich and their two children; he left nothing to Suzanne or the children he had had with her. Suzanne, who had

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Constitution Act (Canada), 1867

never accepted his marriage to Julia, had moved back to the area of her birth, and had taken refuge in a convent, died in 1862. The case was instituted by John Connolly, William’s son by his wife Suzanne. John argued that William Connolly’s marriage to his (John’s) mother was valid and that it had created a community of property between them that entitled Suzanne to half of William’s estate, as she had been alive at the time of his death. As one of her six children, he claimed his share of her half of the estate. The key question before the court was whether the marriage, which had been solemnized according to Cree custom, was valid and enforceable. The lawyers for Woolrich argued that it was English law that was and had been in force in the Northwest Territories for more than a century and that, because the marriage had not been solemnized according to English law, it was not valid. Woolrich relied on the granting of the Hudson’s Bay Company Charter by the King of England in 1670 as evidence of the primacy of English law in the Northwest Territories, which were part of the territory governed by this charter. Justice Samuel Monk of the Quebec Superior Court concluded that English law did not prevail in the region where William married Suzanne in 1803 and that the “customs of the Cree Indians relative to marriage were in force there at that time” (1 C.N.L.C. at p. 81). He noted that, before being conquered in Canada by the British, the French had conducted a long-term trading relationship with the Cree and other First Nations inhabiting the Northwest Territories, and that during two hundred years of trading the French had never tried to “subvert or modify the laws and usages of the aboriginal tribes, except where they had established colonies and permanent settlements, and then only by persuasion” (1 C.N.L.C. at p. 77). William Connolly’s marriage to Suzanne was valid because the territorial rights, political organization, laws, and usages of the Indian tribes were not modified by the arrival and establishment of European traders (1 C.N.L.C. at p. 79). Therefore, William’s subsequent marriage to Julia Woolrich was ruled a nullity. This conclusion was upheld by the majority judges of the appellate court, and the matter was settled between the parties before it was heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although the judgment is dated in its use of language. it remains relevant today for its recognition of

www.abc-clio.com

663

the force, validity, and legitimacy of aboriginal customs, institutions, and laws. For many years, this judgment received little attention from Canadian courts and lawyers. More recently, it was referred to in detail by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in its report, Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, and the Constitution. At page 7 of this report, the commission concluded that one of the lessons to be drawn from the judgments in Connolly v. Woolrich is that sources of law and authority in Canada “include the common laws and political systems of Aboriginal nations.” Anjali Choksi References and Further Reading Connolly v. Woolrich, 1 Canadian Native Law Cases 70 (Quebec Superior Court). Johnstone et al. v. Connolly, 1 Canadian Native Law Cases 151, also reported at (1869), 17 R.J.R.Q. 266, (Quebec Queen’s Bench). Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1993. Partners in Confederation: Aboriginal Peoples, SelfGovernment, and the Constitution. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group.

Constitution Act (Canada), 1867 The Constitution Act of 1867 was formerly referred to as the British North America Act. This is the British legislation that created the Dominion of Canada, effective July 1, 1867. Of greatest relevance to the treaties with Canada’s various Native peoples are Articles 91 and 92, which distribute powers between the federal and provincial governments. The distribution of powers in these articles has also been a significant source of legislative difficulty in terms of determining which level of government is responsible for and has control over various aspects of Native life that are regulated by previous treaties. According to Article 91.24, the Crown provides exclusive legislative authority to the federal government in Canada in the area of “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.” In Article 92.5, the Crown provides exclusive legislative authority to provincial governments in Canada in the area of “(the) Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.” This exclusive legislative division between the federal and provincial governments thus did not provide for a governing role for First Nations in Canada. As all Native populations in Canada were

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

664

Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870

under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, they did not have the same guaranteed rights as other peoples in Canada. Furthermore, whatever rights they did have were potentially subject to extinguishment by acts of legislation, administration, or treaty. Thus, the Constitution Act of 1982 was not able to recreate Native rights that had been eliminated between 1867 and 1982, only to protect and guarantee those rights that still existed. According to later legal decisions on the terminology of the Constitution Act, Canada’s Inuit are to be included in the meaning of the term Indians. The same cannot necessarily be said of Canada’s Métis population. Recognition of Métis has generally been accomplished not through the Constitution Act but rather through the Manitoba Act of 1870 and the Dominion Lands Act of 1879. Furthermore, some Métis who lived with non-Métis Indians became “treaty Indians” under the Indian Act of 1886, particularly if the mother was Native and the father was not Native. An underexamined and highly complex facet of the Constitution Act is the delineation of “Lands reserved for Indians.” This is of particular importance in determining the complete extent of Rupert’s Land, the territory given to the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) by the English Crown in 1670. This land was subsequently transferred to the Canadian government in 1870 under the Rupert’s Land and Northwestern Territory Order, according to terms laid out in Section 146 of the Constitution Act. Through the provisions of the HBC’s surrender of territory to the Canadian government, with the land transfer was responsibility for the protections and compensation, where necessary, of the Natives in those territories as well as the responsibility to settle the claims of these Natives. The problems arise from the fact that the HBC was surrendering to the Canadian government only the lands over which it had jurisdiction— Rupert’s Land, not the Northwestern Territories, which fell outside its jurisdiction. Thus, the obligations to protect the Native populations outside Rupert’s Land and in the Northwestern Territories could be interpreted as bearing only a moral, not a legal, obligation for the Canadian government. As such, the Canadian government needed only to settle claims of compensation for lands required for settlement, in conformity with equitable principles that have been the practice of the British Crown in previous dealings with Native populations. The interplay between the jurisdictional rights of the federal and provincial governments as they

www.abc-clio.com

relate to the governance of Natives and Native legal issues is evident in a number of areas. These areas include employment law and marriage law, wherein the bulk of legislative control is with the provincial governments. Due to the division of powers, social services has been a contentious area, with numerous disputes over responsibility occurring between the levels and involving complex issues of finances, culture, history, and constitutionalism. Generally, the provinces have refrained from financial responsibility for these services on reserve land but have legal rights to regulate and deliver these services on reserves. It is also an issue in the use of nonreserve lands, Crown land, which the government holds in guarantee for Natives. The issue of jurisdiction has arisen as a result of the provincial government, which has jurisdiction over the sale and use of public lands (as these guaranteed lands are), coming into conflict with the concept of Native title to these lands, as it is the government that has guaranteed to protect these lands on behalf of the Natives, who had no guaranteed legislative jurisdiction over themselves. In important legal decisions in the late nineteenth century, this issue tended to be settled in favor of the provinces. Donald R. Bennie See also Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Métis; Sovereignty; Trust. References and Further Reading Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man’s Law: Native People in Nineteenth Century Canadian Jurisprudence. Toronto: Osgoode Society. McNeil, Kent. 1982. Native Claims in Rupert’s Land and the North-western Territory: Canada’s Constitutional Obligations. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre. Reiter, Robert. 1994. The Law of Canadian Indian Treaties. Edmonton: Juris Analytica.

Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 The Manitoba Act of 1870 created the province of Manitoba, reserved 1.4 million acres of land for the Métis, guaranteed the equality of the French and English languages, and established separate schools for Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Manitoba Act was subsequently confirmed by the British Parliament with the passage of the British North America Act of 1871. The creation of Manitoba signified the federal government’s desire to control western

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870

Louis Riel (1844–1885) was a Métis leader and led the Northwest Rebellion. He was hanged for treason on November 16, 1885 at Regina, Saskatchewan. (Corbis)

development and expansion and is the first attempt by Canada to deal with Métis rights. After confederation in 1867, Canadians looked to the west as a natural extension of Canada; they wanted a nation that stretched from sea unto sea. With this in mind, the Canadian politicians negotiated with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) to purchase Rupert’s Land. In 1868, the HBC agreed to sell Rupert’s Land to Canada for £300,000. The HBC kept one twentieth of its lands, which included land for agricultural purposes and the land surrounding trading posts. The actual transfer was planned to take place in December 1869 but was delayed until July 1870. Once the sale was completed, the entire area became known as the Northwest Territories. Angered by British denials of their requests for crown colony status and the lack of consultation concerning the sale, and fearful that their way of life would be destroyed by ethnocentric English newcomers, the Métis decided to resist Canadian imperialism. After preventing incoming lieutenant governor William McDougall from entering Red River, the

www.abc-clio.com

665

Métis, led by Louis Riel, assumed control of Fort Garry, the HBC post, and declared a provisional government in October 1869. Negotiators were dispatched to Ottawa with a list of Métis grievances, concerns, and demands. Politicians in Ottawa, buffeted by anti-French and anti-Native sentiments, passed the Manitoba Act, which was based on national political concerns and Métis demands. The act created the new province’s governmental structures. Manitoba’s government would consist of a lieutenant governor appointed by Ottawa, an appointed upper house, and an elected lower house. The province would receive two appointed senators at the federal level and would be allowed to elect four members to Parliament. Provincial crown lands remained under the control of the federal government. There were also financial considerations designed to help the province establish and run the government (Canada, 1870). Its small size and square shape led to Manitoba’s nickname, the Postage Stamp Province. Sections 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act concerned Métis lands. Section 31 reserved 1.4 million acres of ungranted lands for the Métis and their children. It also gave the government the right to determine the location of the grant and the eligibility of individuals to receive land. Section 32 recognized individuals’ titles to the land they already occupied. Finally, both sections referred to the need to extinguish Indian claims to the land (Canada, 1870). Under the terms of Section 31 the government of Canada established a system of awarding land to the Métis. Essentially, eligible Métis would receive scrip, a certificate redeemable for a quarter section of land, that could be used to preempt land anywhere in Manitoba or the Northwest Territories, provided it had been surrendered by the Indians and surveyed. The administration of Section 31 through the scrip process, and the recognition of existing titles through Section 32, created problems. The general historical consensus is that the government managed the entire process badly through fraud and negligence. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, “[I]t took from 1877 until 1900 to complete the process and more than 90 per cent of the land was diverted . . . to persons other than Métis children.” There is evidence that some Métis received scrip for land that they already occupied, which was contrary to the provisions of Section 32. Thomas Flanagan, political scientist and former policy advisor to the Reform Party of Canada, maintains that, despite both documented and oral evidence, the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

666

Indian Appropriations Act, 1871

government followed the spirit and intent of Sections 31 and 32 (Flanagan 1991). Moreover, he concludes that protests concerning the injustice and rampant corruption since 1874 had little to do with the Métis and more to do with the interests of speculators (Flanagan 1991, 179). In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People reported that, although the courts can determine legal liability, the government of Canada is “morally obliged to enter negotiations with Métis representatives to correct this injustice.” The Manitoba Métis failed to receive what was promised in 1870, and Canada “fell inexcusably short of its moral obligation to treat Manitoba Métis equitably” (Canada 1991, Ch. 5, App. 5C). The Métis are still seeking justice. Karl S. Hele See also Canada; Métis; Riel, Louis. References and Further Reading Canada. 1870. Manitoba Act. Constitution of Canada. Canada. 1991. Report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4, Perspectives and Realities. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 2002. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Flanagan, Thomas. 1991. Métis Lands in Manitoba. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press. Friesen, Gerald. 1987. The Canadian Prairies: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sprague, D. N. 1980a. “Government Lawlessness in the Administration of Manitoba Land Claims, 1870–1887.” 10 Manitoba Law Journal 415–441. Sprague, D. N. 1980b. “The Manitoba Land Question, 1870–1882.” Journal of Canadian Studies 15: 74–84. Stanley, George F. G. 1960. The Birth of Western Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellions. Repr., 1992. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Indian Appropriations Act, 1871 The Indian Appropriations Act passed by the U.S. Congress on March 3, 1871, contained a simple clause that repudiated the process of making treaties with American Indian tribes: “ . . . That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty . . .” (16 Stat. 566). The treaty-making

www.abc-clio.com

process originated in the U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8 of which Indian tribes were explicitly identified along with foreign nations as entities with whom Congress would regulate commerce. The commerce clause, which encapsulated the economic ambitions of the new American nation, was the basis on which the federal government established its relationships with Indian tribes. Indians controlled furs and food as the basis for trade, and they possessed the land that the American government needed for its expansion. Through the long and complicated process of treaty making, Indian tribes gave up most of their land and accepted the ostensible protection of the U.S. government. In the treaty-making process, the executive branch of the government appointed commissioners to treat with tribes. Commissioners made promises to tribal leaders, which the U.S. Senate had to ratify and which the House of Representatives had to fund in the annual appropriations bill for the Office of Indian Affairs. The annual appropriation act became the main vehicle for implementing federal Indian policy. Congress was preoccupied with how much Indians were costing the government rather than how the government was carrying out its responsibility to Indians under treaties. Ely Parker, commissioner of Indian affairs and himself a Seneca Indian, in his annual report in 1870 made clear the government’s position with regard to Indian tribes and treaties. Arrangements between tribes and the government “should not be of a treaty nature. . . . A treaty involves the idea of a compact between two or more sovereign powers, each possessing sufficient authority and force to compel a compliance with the obligations incurred. . . . The Indian tribes of the United States are not sovereign nations, capable of making treaties, as none of them have an organized government of such inherent strength as would secure a faithful obedience of its people in the observance of compacts of this character.” Parker reiterated the notion that tribes were “wards of the government” and that their claims to lands were “a mere possessory one.” The treaty process had given them a false impression of “national independence.” He called for an end to “the cruel farce of thus dealing with its helpless and ignorant wards” (Parker 1869, 6). Debate over the appropriations bill for 1871 revealed this sentiment. Congressman Fitch of Nevada declared that “all the money that is expended in the State of Nevada for . . . paying salaries of Indian agents and purchasing blankets for

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870

Indians is uselessly expended” (Congressional Globe 1871, 1821). Indian tribes were considered totally dependent on the federal government and totally subject to congressional control. The general tenor of the debate in Congress was to slash payments to carry out provisions of Indian treaties. A rumor was also circulating in Congress that a new federal policy was in the offing that would give responsibility for Indian agencies to various religious denominations (Priest 1969, 96–102). Congress would thus be able to pass its responsibilities on to these organizations. Congress also adopted the policy that its statutes took precedence over treaties as the supreme law of the land. There were no Indian voices to contest the act. Congress simply dismissed the idea of tribes as sovereign nations capable of dealing with the federal government. Clara Sue Kidwell See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Parker, Ely S. (Donehogawa); Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust. References and Further Reading Congressional Globe, 41st Congress, 3rd Session, January 25, 1871, p. 730; March 1, 1871, p. 1821. Parker, E. S., to Hon. J. D. Cox, Washington City, DC, December 23, 1869, Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Made to the Secretary of the Interior, for the year 1869. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1870. Priest, Loring Benson. 1969. Uncle Sam’s Stepchildren: The Reformation of United States Indian Policy, 1865–1887. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 In 1870, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was not exempt from taxation on tobacco manufacture, despite the existence of an 1866 treaty specifically guaranteeing them exemption. In a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s treaty clause, the Court based its ruling on the grounds that a law of Congress supersedes the provisions of a treaty. In the Cherokee Tobacco suit, two Cherokee nationals, Elias Boudinot and Stand Watie, challenged the imposition of an 1868 federal tax law on their tobacco factory, which had been established in the Cherokee Nation under provisions of the Cherokee Treaty of 1866. Article 10 of the 1866 treaty stated that Cherokee citizens had the right to sell any product or merchan-

www.abc-clio.com

667

dise without having to pay “any tax thereon which is now or may be levied by the U.S.” In 1888, Congress enacted a general revenue law that imposed taxes on liquor and tobacco products “produced anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States.” Justice Noah Swayne, speaking for the Court, said that the case was simple because it came down to which of the two laws—treaty or general domestic— was superior. He developed the term the “last-intime” rule, which in effect said that whichever document is latest in time stands, whether treaty or statute (Kappler 1904). This was a significant precedent for Native Americans, specifically the Cherokee. The treaty termination law, attached as a rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871, had closed the door on Indian treaties, although some preexisting ratified treaties were still honored by the United States. This law effectively froze tribes in political limbo. They were no longer recognized as nations capable of treating with the federal government, but they remained separate sovereignties outside the pale of the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this decision, Native American tribes were virtually deprived of legal and political protection. Hereafter, the federal government explicitly or implicitly could abrogate treaty provisions, and Native American tribes had little recourse but to return to the Congress that had enacted the annulled legislation. The Supreme Court generally deferred to the political branches on Native American matters, saying that “the act of Congress must prevail as if the treaty were not an element to be considered” (U.S. v. Cherokee, 1870). This opinion ignored the historical and political reality that the Cherokee Nation was a separate and autonomous political entity not subject to general domestic laws unless they had given their express consent. The opinion denied the fact that Congress (itself) had not explicitly stated in the law of 1868 that the revenue act applied to Indian Territory. In fact, it disavowed the general principle that specific laws, such as treaties, which create special rights, are not to be held “repealed by implication by any subsequent law couched in general terms” (U.S. v. Cherokee, 1870). Even with earlier U.S. guarantees of the sanctity of treaty rights, Cherokee Tobacco announced that those hard-won rights, often secured at the cost of great amounts of tribal land and the loss of other rights, could be destroyed by mere implication. Fred Lindsay

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

668

Indian Act of Canada, 1876

See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Filler, Louis, and Alan Guttmann. 1962. The Removal of the Cherokee Nation: Manifest Destiny or National Dishonor? Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. United States v. Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 (1870) (Wall.). Wardell, Morris L. 1938. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation 1838–1907. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkins, David. 1997. American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Indian Act of Canada, 1876 The Indian Act of Canada is a legislated act of the Canadian government that has had a profound impact on the lives of aboriginal peoples since its enactment in 1876. The Indian Act regulates most aspects of the lives of aboriginal peoples who reside on Indian reserves. At the individual level, it sets forth a legal definition of who is eligible to be considered a status Indian under the act and defines their rights. At the collective level, it defines the structure, rights, and responsibilities of band councils in relation to reserve lands and resources. The band council is an elected system of local government that replaced traditional forms of governance when the Indian Act was imposed. Under the Indian Act, final decision-making power for all matters concerning Indian people and reserve lands rested with the federal government. Indian peoples did not own reserve lands. All reserve lands were held in trust by the Canadian government. Although the Indian Act has undergone several revisions since it was first passed in 1876, it has fundamentally remained unchanged. It continues to reflect the Canadian government’s paternalistic attitude toward aboriginal peoples. The origin and content of the 1876 Indian Act arose out of the historic realities of the late nineteenth century and the ideologies of the Canadians of European descent. Aboriginal peoples were no longer needed as military allies, and their vital roles in the fur trade economy were lessening with the decline of that industry. The Canadian government had also begun the process of signing treaties with aboriginal nations in central Canada as a means of

www.abc-clio.com

opening up lands for settlement and resource extraction. In the minds of the non-aboriginal people, Indians needed to be civilized. The Indian Act was enacted to provide the political and legal force necessary to bring about the cultural and social changes that would lead to the inevitable assimilation of aboriginal peoples into European Canadian society. The Indian Act set out the rules by which a status Indian lost status and became enfranchised. A status Indian woman who married a non-status man, Indian or non-Indian, lost her Indian status and was no longer considered an Indian under the act. The children from this marriage were not considered Indian under the act. Status Indians who earned university degrees or entered professions would also lose their status. The potlatch, the central institution of the peoples of the West Coast, became illegal in 1884 when an amendment was added to the Indian Act. This was followed in 1895 by another amendment that outlawed the sun dance among the Plains peoples. A further amendment in 1927 prohibited Native organizations from raising money or retaining lawyers to pursue any claims they had to their traditional lands. The last major revision of the Indian Act occurred in 1951. The laws prohibiting the potlatch, the sun dance, and other ceremonies, as well as the right to pursue a land claim, were repealed. It was not until 1960, under the Canadian Bill of Rights, that status Indians gained their full rights as citizens and were allowed to vote in federal elections. In 1985, the Indian Act was revised by Bill C-31. The rules changed regarding the loss of status that occurred when status Indian women married nonstatus men. Women who had lost their status, and their children, could apply for reinstatement under the Indian Act. Under the new regulations, status Indian women and men maintain their status when marrying nonstatus individuals, as do their children. However, in this situation, Indian status is not continued into the next generation. Based on existing marriage patterns, this will result in a steady decline in the number of status Indians registered under the Indian Act. The overall objective of the Indian Act, the assimilation of aboriginal peoples, was never accomplished. Though aboriginal people’s lives have been drastically affected by the Indian Act, they have maintained their distinct cultures and identities and continue to fight for the right to practice self-governance. Ross Hoffman

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883

669

See also Canada; Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (Canada); Self-Government Agreements (Canada). References and Further Reading Frideres, James S., and René R. Gadacz. 2001. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts. 6th ed. Toronto: Prentice Hall. Native Law Centre. 1993. The Indian Act and Amendments, 1970–1993: An Indexed Collection. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre. Venne, Sharon Helen, comp. 1981. Indian Acts and Amendments 1868–1975: An Indexed Collection. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre.

Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883 Ex Parte Crow Dog was a landmark 1883 Supreme Court case. In it, the Court’s opinion affirmed tribal jurisdiction while opening the door to increased Congressional oversight. The case, which centered on the high-profile killing of a Lakota chief by another Indian, ultimately prompted the passage of federal legislation that limited tribal sovereignty and provided the basis for later judicial interpretations granting Congress full legal authority over American Indians. On August 5, 1881, Spotted Tail, a principal chief of the Sicangu (Brulé) Lakota, was shot and killed while returning from a tribal council. His killer, Crow Dog, was another influential Sicangu leader, a former head of the Rosebud agency police force and Spotted Tail’s cousin. Historians disagree on Crow Dog’s precise motive, but the killing was most likely the result of political rivalry—both aggravated and shaped by the influence of U.S. officials on traditional power relations in Sicangu society. Though U.S. Indian agents were free to interfere in tribal politics, they were prohibited from enforcing American laws on the reservation. As a national policy, the United States left the prosecution of internal crime—offenses committed by Indians upon other Indians—to the individual tribes to adjudicate in accordance with local custom. Consequently, when news of Spotted Tail’s killing reached the nearby Rosebud agency, officials there summoned a tribal council. In traditional Lakota society, the killing of another person was classified as a personal conflict—a matter to be settled by the participants

www.abc-clio.com

Crow Dog (c. 1835–1910), a Lakota leader, killed a rival, Spotted Tail, in 1881. This led to a landmark Supreme Court opinion in 1883 that affirmed tribal jurisdiction while opening the door to increased Congressional authority over native peoples. (Library of Congress)

and their immediate families. But this was a highprofile event that threatened tribal unity. Eager to avoid a protracted feud among existing tribal factions, the assembled council took measures to facilitate the resolution process and dispatched envoys to both families. In keeping with Lakota custom, Crow Dog was obliged to pay blood money to compensate Spotted Tail’s family. After payment of $600, eight horses, and a blanket, the tribe considered the matter resolved. Average Americans who followed these events were reportedly appalled by the monetary settlement. The agency clerk at Rosebud, ostensibly in response to a public demand for justice, ordered Crow Dog’s arrest on the basis that the federal statutes applied to Indian country under the Federal Enclaves Act of 1817 and through provisions of an 1868 U.S. treaty with the Sioux. Crow Dog was

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

670

Elk v. Wilkins, 1884

transported to Deadwood, Dakota Territory, where he was tried in federal court, convicted, and sentenced to death. The case might well have ended there had a federal marshal not inexplicably released Crow Dog to settle affairs at home. No one expected Crow Dog to return voluntarily to custody for his execution. When he did, newspapers praised his return as heroic and honorable, and public sentiment shifted in his favor. Amid this publicity, several attorneys volunteered to appeal the conviction, and a petition to review the constitutionality of the government’s case was ultimately presented to the Supreme Court on Crow Dog’s behalf. In the resulting opinion, Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s long-standing policy of yielding jurisdiction to Indian nations over all crimes committed by and against American Indians in Indian country. The Court, however, additionally determined that federal jurisdiction over Indians was dependent upon the expression of intent by Congress to exercise such jurisdiction. Because Congress had never expressed such intent, the Court overturned the conviction and released Crow Dog. Though favorable, the opinion proved a disastrous precedent for American Indian sovereignty: Congress was now constitutionally free to limit tribal authority by demonstrating its intent through legislation. The unpopular decision additionally galvanized many other Americans who felt that Crow Dog had escaped punishment. This case, they believed, demonstrated that Indians were incapable of governing themselves. Under a prevailing social climate that favored assimilation, the public pressured the government to extend its jurisdiction to encompass Indian reservations. In 1885, advocates of this reform were rewarded with the Major Crimes Act, a brief piece of legislation that granted the federal government criminal jurisdiction on reservation lands over Indians accused of any of the seven serious crimes of murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, or larceny. The push for reform also led to the establishment, in 1883, of governmentally appointed and approved “courts of Indian offenses” to deal with lesser crimes. These changes signaled a reversal in federal Indian policy that eroded tribal sovereignty and significantly altered the legal and constitutional status of Indian nations and peoples. Caoimhín Ó Fearghail

www.abc-clio.com

See also Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Spotted Tail; United States v. Kagama, 1886. References and Further Reading Clow, Richmond L. 1998. “The Anatomy of a Lakota Shooting: Crow Dog and Spotted Tail, 1879–1881.” South Dakota History 28(4): 209–227. Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Elk v. Wilkins, 1884 In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the United States Supreme Court held that Indians were not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship through one of two methods: birth or naturalization. In the Elk v. Wilkins case, the Court emphatically denied Elk’s claim on both issues. Therefore, neither those Indians still living on reservations or those who had severed all ties to their tribes and had assimilated themselves into the dominant culture held the right to become citizens or to vote. In 1881, John Elk, an English-speaking farmer living in Omaha, Nebraska, attempted to register to vote but was denied by city council officials on grounds that he was an Indian. Elk argued that he was a citizen of the United States, that he had lived in Omaha for several years, had assimilated himself into the dominant culture, and had broken all ties to his original tribe. However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruled against him. Justice Horace Gray addressed the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applied to Indians born in U.S. territory who had voluntarily separated themselves from their tribes and who lived, worked, and paid taxes among the white citizens of the country. After denying Indians protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, based on the argument that their place of birth did not grant them that protection, the Court addressed the issue of naturalization. The Court also denied Indians the right to become naturalized citizens of the United States. The Court further argued that the plaintiff’s having surrendered himself to the United States did not mean that “the United States accepted his surrender,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

United States v. Kagama, 1886

or that he has ever been naturalized . . . or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen” (Elk v. Wilkins, 1884). Although the majority decision of the Court went against Elk, Associate Justice Marshall Harlan dissented, arguing that provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did apply to a portion of the Indian population. Justice Harlan maintained that, because the 1866 act specifically excluded “Indians not taxed,” it therefore included Indians who had left their tribes and assimilated themselves into the dominant culture. In response to the Elk v. Wilkins decision, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts argued that the Indians needed to become more independent and less reliant upon tribal relations. To accomplish this goal of greater independence, Dawes authored the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act. Robert O. Marlin IV See also Allotments; Assimilation; Guardianship/Wardship; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887. References and Further Reading Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). Martin, Jill E. 1990. “Neither Fish, Flesh, Fowl, Nor Good Red Herring: The Citizenship Status of American Indians, 1830–1924,” Journal of the West, 29(3): 75–87. Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zelden, Charles L. 2002. Voting Rights on Trial: A Handbook with Cases, Laws and Documents. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

United States v. Kagama, 1886 In United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), the Supreme Court enunciated a “superior position” of the federal government vis-à-vis Native nations (a doctrine that came to be known as plenary power) as it upheld the Major Crimes Act of 1885. The Court was upholding the federal trust responsibility against erosion by the states. The Court said that “the people of the states . . . are often [the Indians’] deadliest enemies.” This case was the first Supreme Court decision to directly address the legality of federal jurisdiction over both Indians and non-Indians in Indian country. A year after the Major Crimes Act was passed, attorneys for Kagama argued that it was unconstitu-

www.abc-clio.com

671

tional. The Supreme Court ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not authorize Congress to regulate the internal affairs of Indian nations and their members. However, the Court held that, because the states had no legal authority over Indians living on reservations, the role of sovereign must be played by the United States. Native American conceptions of sovereignty were omitted from this legal formulation. The facts of the case concerned two Indians, Kagama and Mahawaha, who killed another Indian on the Hupa Reservation in California. They were arrested, tried, and convicted in federal court on grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitution gave the government jurisdiction on the Hupa Reservation. The U.S. Supreme Court, following John Marshall’s opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), held that Indian lands did not constitute foreign nations. “These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation,” ruled the Court. “They are communities dependent on the United States . . . From their very weaknesses and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the federal government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection and with it the power.” The Court also held that “[t]he Indians owe no allegiance to a state within which their reservation may be established, and the state gives them no protection.” Justice Samuel Miller, writing for the Court majority, said that the government had always regarded Native nations as semi-sovereign entities, “not as states, not as nations, but as separate people, with power of regulating their internal relations and thus not brought into the laws of the Union or the States within whose limits they resided.” Bruce E. Johansen See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust. References and Further Reading Kickingbird, Kirke. 1983. Indian Jurisdiction. Washington, DC: Institute for the Development of Indian Law. United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375 (1886). Wilkins, David E., and K.Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

672

General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887

General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887 Enacted on February 8, 1887, the General Allotment Act (also known as the Dawes Act after its sponsor, Henry L. Dawes) provided for the allotment of tribal lands in severalty and for the cession of surplus land for white settlement. Reservation lands were divided into parcels deeded to individual tribal members, with proceeds from the sale of surplus land going to fund Indian education and agricultural development. Two contradictory impulses motivated supporters of allotment. Philanthropic “friends” of the Indian intended to hasten “assimilation” into white society by weakening tribal structures and encourag-

ing Indians to become “civilized,” independent, landholding farmers, while simultaneously protecting Indian land from illegal encroachment by white settlers. Paradoxically, however, the legislation also provided a mechanism for the legal divestment of “surplus” Indian land to white settlers and was thus also supported by western land grabbers. Between 1887 and 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act formally ended the policy of allotment, approximately 90 million acres of land, two-thirds of the original Indian landholding of 138 million acres, had passed out of Indian ownership (Downes 1945, 332). The principal provisions of allotment were as follows: (1) Each family head was allocated a land grant of 160 acres, with each single person over the

The General Allotment Act of 1887 surveyed and assigned individual allotted lands to members of Indian tribes. Surplus lands following tribal allotments were often opened to white settlement. On September 16, 1893, over 6 million acres of the Cherokee Outlet in Oklahoma Territory were opened for settlement. (Bettmann/Corbis)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887

age of eighteen and each orphan under the age of eighteen receiving 80 acres and each single person under the age of eighteen receiving 40 acres. Married women were excluded from allotment benefits. (2) Following implementation of allotment, a period of four years commenced during which allottees could select their own land. If allottees failed to select land by the end of this period, the secretary of the interior could instruct the Indian agent to undertake selection on their behalf. (3) Subject to the approval of the secretary of the interior, each allottee would be issued with a patent in fee holding their lands in trust for twenty-five years for the sole use and benefit of the allottee and his or her heirs, during which period the land could not be alienated or encumbered. (4) On expiry of the trust period (which the president had the discretion to extend) the allottee would receive the land in fee simple and become a U.S. citizen, subject to the civil and criminal laws of the state in which the allottee was resident. The central aim of allotment was to “civilize” Indians by transforming them into independent farmers and citizens and diminishing the bonds of tribal culture. It was thought that individual property ownership would act as an incentive to Indians for self-improvement and that the distribution of white settlers onto unallotted land across reservations would provide Indians with examples of the key “American” values of industriousness and individualism to which to aspire. By dispersing tribal members across the reservation onto individual family farms, it was also hoped that the practice of “heathen” customs, rituals, and religions would be inhibited. In practice, allottees were frequently povertystricken through poor land choice or limited agricultural skills, and millions of acres of allotted land were eventually lost to white settlers through fraud or sold to pay taxes, leading to a checkerboard pattern of ownership of tribal lands. The divestment of land was hastened by an 1891 amendment to the act allowing for the leasing of “unalienable” lands under certain circumstances, for example, where an allottee was unable to occupy and improve land due to age or infirmity. A number of tribes were exempt from allotment, including the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Osage, Sac and Fox, Miami, Peoria, a portion of Sioux land in Nebraska, and the Seneca Nation of New York State, although later legislation, such as the Curtis Act of 1898 dealing with the so-

www.abc-clio.com

673

called Five Civilized Tribes, eventually nullified most of these exemptions. Annie Kirby See also Allotments; Assimilation; Collier, John; Curtis Act, 1898; Dawes, Henry Laurens; Dawes Commission; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Meriam Report, 1928. References and Further Reading Carter, Kent. 1999. The Dawes Commission and the Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893–1914. Orem, UT: Ancestry.com Incorporated. Downes, Randolph C. 1945. “A Crusade for Indian Reform, 1922–1934.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 32(3): 331–354. Otis, D. S. 1973. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. ed. Francis Paul Prucha. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1986. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.

St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887 This case involved the Ojibway of Treaty 3 (1873), the province of Ontario, and the federal government of Canada. It was heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a committee of law lords based in the United Kingdom, which at the time was the highest court of appeal for Canada. It concerned the logging interest of a private company and the status of Crown lands reserved for Indians by the Dominion of Canada, and whether this was consistent with the rights of the province of Ontario to these lands. It is a leading Canadian decision on aboriginal land rights and the division of federalprovincial legislative powers over aboriginal lands. It is the first Canadian case in which the existence of aboriginal land rights is recognized. The province of Ontario challenged the logging company’s federal permit to a timber berth on Lake Wabigoon, and the challenge succeeded in all the lower courts. The federal government of Canada appealed to the Privy Council. It argued that, under Treaty 3 and its legislative authority under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867, which grants the federal government authority to make laws in relation to “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” it was entitled to administer all treaty lands. The province counter-argued that section 91(24) only

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

674

Atoka Agreement, 1897

extended to lands that were “Indian reserves,” which in the pre-confederation legislation referred to small tracts of land allotted to various tribes, and not treaty lands. In its decision, the Privy Council referred to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which provides for the protection of aboriginal land rights, and ruled that Parliament had authority to legislate in respect of “all lands reserved, under any terms and conditions, for Indian occupation,” including those covered by the proclamation. The area in dispute was within the proclamation’s reservation of hunting grounds, and the Indians had, prior to treaty, an aboriginal or Indian title to those lands. For the purposes of Section 109 of the Constitution Act of 1867, Indian title was defined as “an interest other than that of the Province.” Once that interest was ceded under Treaty 3, however, the Province had full and unencumbered beneficial interest of the Crown, subject to the administration and control of the provincial legislature. This meant that the federal government of Canada had no property right in the disputed area. Also, Treaty 3 did not indicate that the Indians were intended to have beneficial interest in timber revenues. For these reasons, the federal government’s appeal failed. Although the Privy Council did not rule on the precise nature of Indian interest, it made several important observations about it. The Privy Council held that Indian possession of lands “can only be ascribed to the general provisions made by the Royal Proclamation in favour of all Indian tribes then living under the sovereignty and protection of the British Crown.” It also held that, under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, “the tenure of the Indians was a personal and usufructuary right, dependent upon the good will of the Sovereign.” Judge John Gwynne described the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as the “Indian Bill of Rights,” which specifically guaranteed Indian rights: “ . . . Nations or Tribes of Indians . . . should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them . . . as their Hunting Grounds . . . We do . . . strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians . . . ; but that, if at any Time any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians . . .”

www.abc-clio.com

Although St Catherine’s represents a historic decision in terms of providing the impetus for continuing recognition of aboriginal peoples and their land rights, the decision restricted the nature of any land rights by suggesting that they are contingent on Crown grant or recognition. This meant that, upon acquisition of sovereignty by conquest or cession, private property rights or preexisting customary land rights ceased to exist and could only be enforced if subsequently recognized by legislation or executive action. Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Royal Proclamation of 1763. References and Further Reading Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man’s Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence. Chapter 6. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McNeil, Kent. 1997. “The Meaning of Aboriginal Title.” In Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality and Respect for Difference, ed. Michael Asch. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Slattery, Brian. 1987. “Understanding Aboriginal Rights,” 66 Canadian Bar Review 727. St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, 13 S.C.R. 577 (1887).

Atoka Agreement, 1897 The noted Atoka Agreement occurred between the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and the U.S. government. This agreement involved the creation of tribal rolls pursuant to the Dawes Act and allotment of the two tribes’ lands into residential, municipal, commercial, and trust property. The agreement also detailed the process for selling the “excessive holdings” that remained after the allotments had taken place, outlined some mineral rights of the nations, and provided lands and rights for the freedmen of African descent who had been slaves of the Chickasaw and Choctaw from the late 1700s in Mississippi, through removal to Indian Territory in 1837, and until 1866 when the Civil War ceased (Kappler 1904, vol. 1, 646–656). After hostilities between the North and South ended, both the Choctaw and Chickasaw, who had allied with the South, signed the treaty of 1866 at Fort Smith, Arkansas. Although the United States had broken treaties by not providing protection to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Atoka Agreement, 1897

any of the five tribes whose territory had been encroached upon by the Confederates, the government held the Choctaw and Chickasaw, as well as the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole, totally responsible for the tribe members who had sided with the South. In addition to providing amnesty for the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes who had broken their peace agreements with the U. S. government by signing total alliances with the Confederates, the treaty of 1866 organized the two tribal governments and began the mapping process of the nations for roads, incorporation of towns, and, ultimately, allotment to tribal citizens. The treaty of 1866 also directed the two tribes to give all persons of African descent or their descendants residency in the nations, forty acres, $100.00, and full voting rights (Kappler 1904, vol. 2, 918–931). The Choctaw eventually fulfilled these requirements by 1886, whereas the Chickasaw opposed the document with regard to the freedmen and refused to allot the freedmen any land in the Chickasaw Nation. The federal government proved no better at resolving the situation. The responsibility of the United States under the treaty of 1866 included moving the freedmen to land previously ceded by the Chickasaw and Choctaw known as the leased district, just west of the Chickasaw Nation (Morris, Goins, and McReynolds 1986, Map 26). However, the U.S. government never enforced the movement of the freedmen to the lands on which the Wichita, Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains-Apache (known contemporarily as the Apache tribe of Oklahoma) were already living when the United States awarded the land to the Chickasaw and Choctaw in the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Still not pleased about that land cession being accomplished without their consent, the Plains tribes of southwestern Oklahoma presented potentially inhospitable hosts for the freedmen—or anyone else, for that matter. Compounding the problem between the Chickasaw and the freedmen was the large number of freed slaves who came into the nation from other places, such as Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The Chickasaw’s firm ideological stance remained that every freedman did not have a claim to part of the Chickasaw Nation solely by virtue of location or Indian blood (Gibson 1971, 291). As a result, the Chickasaw delayed adhering to the demands of the treaty of 1866 by lengthy legal maneuverings and typically slow, tribal bureaucratic malaise. Therefore,

www.abc-clio.com

675

“freed” slaves of African descent actually had no legal civil rights, property rights, or federal government support in the Chickasaw Nation from after the Civil War through Oklahoma’s statehood in 1907 (Littlefield 1980, 220–227). Even though Chickasaw voters refused to pass the Atoka Agreement when it was first submitted to them in the spring of 1898, the passage of the Curtis Act by the U.S. Congress that summer, and the refusal of Congress to accept the negative vote of the Chickasaw people, effectively convinced the Chickasaws that they should pass the agreement. They did this with some minor adjustments in August 1898. When the Chickasaw rolls were finally completed, according to the requirements of the General Allotment Act, on January 1, 1906, the names of 6,319 citizens were listed: 1,538 full bloods, 4,146 mixed bloods, 635 intermarried whites, and 4,670 “Negroes” or freedmen (Gibson 1971, 306–307). Although all enrolled Chickasaw freedmen did receive an average forty-acre allotment in the Chickasaw Nation, the freedman found an even more hostile society in the new state of Oklahoma. All-black towns thrived in the forthcoming new state of Oklahoma, and it offered African Americans opportunities unmatched anywhere in the South. Ironically, Oklahoma enacted segregationist Jim Crow laws in 1907 as its first legislative action upon obtaining statehood. Along with the General Allotment Act and the Curtis Act, the Atoka Agreement sealed the U.S. government’s plan to dissolve the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. By 1906, the tribe had lost control of its collectively held lands through the allotment process and witnessed its laws and government abolished. The federal government appointed chiefs for the tribes until 1970, when Congress passed legislation to allow the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole to elect their own officers (Chickasaw Commission 1975). Hugh W. Foley, Jr. See also Curtis Act, 1898; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Territory; Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole–1866; Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830. References and Further Reading Akers, Donna L. 2004. Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw Nation, 1830–1860. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

676

Curtis Act, 1898

Chickasaw Commission. 1975. Laws of the Chickasaw Nation, I.T., Relating to Intermarried and Adopted Citizens and the Rights of Freedmen. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources. Gibson, Arrell. 1971. The Chickasaws. Norman: University of Oklahoma. Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Littlefield, Daniel F., 1980. The Chickasaw Freedmen. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Morris, John W., Charles R. Goins, and Edwin C. McReynolds. 1986. Historical Atlas of Oklahoma. 3rd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Curtis Act, 1898 The Curtis Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 495, ch. 517) was a piece of allotment-era legislation that attempted to destroy tribal governments and communities in the Indian Territory, particularly among the Five Civilized Tribes. The act overturned numerous treaty rights by allotting tribal lands, invalidating tribal laws, abolishing tribal courts, and giving the secretary of the interior control over tribal revenues as well as mineral leases on Indian lands. In the late 1890s, the “pulverizing engine” of the General Allotment Act had stalled relative to several of the tribes in the Indian Territory, and many of them refused to negotiate new agreements that would essentially abrogate solemn promises made to them earlier. Chief Isparhecher, a full-blood Muscogee Creek, noted the “alarming disregard for the terms of treaties already in existence. . . . What good is there to come of future treaties with the United States when she has no respect for those already existing between us?” (Carter 1999, 30). Ultimately, the inevitability of allotment became apparent, and some of the tribes attempted to negotiate the best terms they could with the Dawes Commission. When some of those agreements were presented to the tribal membership, however, they were often voted down. One such agreement with both the Choctaws and Chickasaws, the Atoka Agreement, was rejected by the Choctaws in December 1897. In Washington, D.C., members of Congress were growing increasingly impatient with the progress of allotment in the Indian Territory under the Dawes Commission. On February 24, 1898, Representative Charles Curtis, himself one-eighth Kaw, introduced “An Act for the Protection of the People

www.abc-clio.com

of the Indian Territory, and for other purposes,” and President William McKinley signed the bill into law on June 28, 1898. Despite its benevolent-sounding title, the only people protected by this legislation were non-Indians. In effect, what the Dawes Commission had been unable to achieve through negotiation, the Curtis Act now attempted through legislative fiat. The portions of the act that immediately affected the tribes dealt with enrollment. Tribal resistance had stymied the Dawes Commission’s attempts to collect rolls of citizens, and allotment could not proceed until satisfactory rolls were generated. The act specified that the commission “shall have access to all rolls and records of the several tribes, and the United States court in Indian Territory shall have jurisdiction to compel the officers of the tribal governments and custodians of such rolls and records to deliver same to said commission, and on their refusal or failure to do so to punish them as for contempt” (Section 21). Once a citizenship roll was completed and tribal lands were surveyed, Section 11 authorized the commission to proceed with allotment. Mineral rights on allotted land, however, were not distributed. Section 13 gave the secretary of the interior exclusive control over those rights. As if allotment itself were not sufficient to destroy the tribal collective, the Curtis Act also attempted to starve tribal governments financially. Section 19 specified that “no payment of any moneys on any account whatever shall hereafter be made by the United States to any of the tribal governments or to any officer thereof for disbursement.” Instead, the secretary of the interior was now in charge of tribal funds, which subsequently would be distributed only to individual tribal members. In addition to the monetary restrictions, the Curtis Act attacked the legal infrastructure of the tribes. Section 26 specified that “the laws of the various tribes or nations of Indians shall not be enforced at law or in equity by the courts of the United States in the Indian Territory.” Section 28 went even further, decreeing that “all tribal courts in Indian Territory shall be abolished, and no officer of said courts shall thereafter have any authority whatever to do or perform any act theretofore authorized by any law in connection with said courts, or to receive any pay for same.” The Curtis Act also incorporated two of the agreements that had been negotiated by the Dawes Commission. Section 29 repeated the terms of the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903

Atoka Agreement of April 23, 1897. Section 30 repeated the terms of the agreement reached with the Creek Special Commission on September 27, 1897. These two sections imposed a December 1, 1898, deadline on all three tribes to ratify the agreements. If they did so, the terms of the Curtis Act would apply to those tribes only in instances in which the terms of the act did not conflict with the provisions of the prior negotiated agreements. Gavin Clarkson See also Atoka Agreement, 1897; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Territory. References and Further Reading Burton, Jeffrey. 1997. Indian Territory and the United States: 1866–1906, Courts, Government and the Movement for Oklahoma Statehood. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carter, Kent. 1999. The Dawes Commission and the Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893–1914. Orem, UT: Ancestry.com. Debo, Angie. 1961. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Repr., University of Oklahoma Press. Hoxie, Frederick E. 1984. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. McDonnell, Janet A. The Dispossession of the American Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 The Treaty of Medicine Lodge in 1867 was signed between the United States and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache. This treaty designated reservation lands but was reversed in 1892 by a congressional commission. Lone Wolf brought suit in the Supreme Court to halt the sale of reservation lands. The Supreme Court denied his claim, determining that Congress had the power to change promises formed through treaties. During the mid-nineteenth century, the Kiowa Indians inhabited the southern plains of the United States. By 1853, the Kiowa allowed military forts and roads into their region and began to accept federal annuities. A treaty was signed between the United

www.abc-clio.com

677

States and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache in 1867 at Medicine Lodge Creek (15 Stat. 581, 589) The tribes agreed to relinquish 90 million acres in exchange for a 2.9 million-acre reserve. The treaty promised the Indians “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation” of their reserve. Article 12 of the treaty required consensus of three-fourths of the male adult members for further cession of their lands. In 1892, the Jerome Commission was sent by the federal government to obtain Native consent to change the treaty of 1867, in anticipation of obtaining a portion of the reserve for settlement. The agreement reached with the tribes came under dispute, which centered on the necessary three-fourths consent of male tribal members. The validity of the signatures obtained was controversial and did not amount to the obligatory number; nevertheless, the agreement was submitted to Congress. After several critical changes to the document, Congress approved the revised arrangement. The Act of June 6, 1900, took possession of 2,991,933 acres of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache Reservation. The federal government paid tribal members only 93 cents per acre—a considerably lower price than that paid for adjacent Native land. In 1901, A-Kei-Quodle, a Kiowa band chief known as Lone Wolf, requested an injunction against secretary of the interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock to terminate the sale of ceded reservation lands. The Supreme Court would address the issue of treaty-based property rights and the powers Congress retained in relationship to the tribes. It took one year before the Supreme Court would hear this case, and they decided against Lone Wolf. The Supreme Court ruled that a congressional statute superseded an earlier treaty, legitimizing the breaking of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge of 1867. The Supreme Court’s final opinion declared, “Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning . . . not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government . . .” (187 U.S. 553 [1903] at 565). It was not a judiciary decision to invalidate this form of congressional legislation. The issue of plenary power, the absolute power that Congress holds unrestrained by the Constitution, was recognized as legal over the other controversial issues of this case. The Supreme Court redefined plenary power to grant the federal government the unrestricted ability to modify or extinguish existing Native rights. The Supreme Court ignored the issue of fraudulent signatures

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

678

Winters v. United States, 1908

and presumed that Congress had acted in good faith in their dealings with the Indians. The Native Americans remained dependent wards of the federal government who could not be safeguarded by their previous treaty rights. The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lone Wolf demonstrated that treaty-based property rights were no longer protected if congressional legislation chose not to recognize them. The Supreme Court ruling implied that congressional powers had always existed, even retroactively, when affirmed by legislation; consent between the federal government and the tribes was no longer a legal requirement. Supporters of allotment in severalty applauded the Supreme Court’s decision as an affirmative judgment to further continue the division of tribal lands. Federal power over tribal lands and Native rights became more abstruse after Lone Wolf; subsequent cases cite Lone Wolf as the basis of congressional plenary power. Recent court rulings have curtailed some aspects of congressional plenary power, demanding no future revocation of treaty rights without “just compensation.” Lone Wolf remains one of the most influential Supreme Court decisions in the last one hundred years, and it continues to influence Native American law. Susan Sánchez-Barnett See also Aboriginal Title; Curtis Act, 1898; Elk v. Wilkins, 1884; Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883; Plenary Power; Supremacy Clause; United States v. Kagama, 1886. References and Further Reading Clark, C. Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 287 U.S. 553, 1903. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Winters v. United States, 1908 The premise of this case concerned whether settlers (appellants) could construct and maintain dams and reservoirs on the Milk River in Montana that would affect the flow of water to the Fort Belknap Reservation. The reservation for the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine tribes was established by an act of Congress

www.abc-clio.com

on April 15, 1874, and ratified by a subsequent act of Congress on May 1, 1888, but it was silent on tribal water rights. The Supreme Court had to consider whether the tribe had ceded its water rights with the cessation of the land. Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court held that the Federal Act of 1888 establishing the reservation reserved tribal water rights. Three issues were important in the decree (opinion). First, treaty and agreement ambiguities were interpreted in favor of the tribes, as they could not have known all terms that would have rendered the agreement void. Second, the tribal grant ceding lands to the United States in exchange for arid reservation lands was not predicated on the premise of losing constant use of the river. The tribe depended on the river to irrigate arid lands that were used for agriculture, farming, and cultivation. Third, upon Montana’s entry into the Union under the “equal footing doctrine,” the federal government reserved and did not extinguish tribal water rights. The history that led to the case was examined by the Court. In 1889, houses were built on the river, and the occupants (settlers) relied on the water for agricultural purposes. In 1900, the settlers built large dams and reservoirs above the point at which the federal government and the tribes diverted their water. This resulted in the deprivation of water for both the tribes and the United States. The settlers had no notice of claim by the United States or the tribes over the river and were oblivious to the reservations’ reliance on the river. Moreover, they believed that, under U.S. law, the river water could be used contemporaneously with the land. Thereafter, many thousands of people and communities were reliant on the river for irrigation and cultivation; without the water, the land would become useless, and communities would dissipate. The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction. A decree was entered against all acts perpetuated by the settlers, and the motion to dismiss the claim was denied. The case turned on the agreement of May 1888 pursuant to the establishment of the reservation. The reservation was a small part of land with a dependency on the river which was exchanged for copious amounts of land. The question remained whether the tribe retained the use of waters or whether cession diminished tribal water rights. The Court ruled that the tribes had not ceded their water rights with land cessation, and thus they continued to enjoy the land

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Meriam Report, 1928

and the waters. This conclusion was based on the canon that treaty and agreement ambiguities are interpreted and resolved in favor of the tribes. The Court decreed that it was unthinkable that, at the time of the agreement, the tribes were attentive to all terms and words that could defeat the purpose of an agreement or treaty. Moreover, Congress would not have rendered the agreement void a year after the establishment of the reservation, as it was federal policy to induce the “civilization and improvement” of the tribes. The appellants put forward five defenses, all of which were nullified by the Supreme Court: first, that land cessation contemporaneously ceded tribal water rights to the river; second, that large numbers of springs were situated on the reservation and could sustain the tribe; third, that it was not the intention of the government to reserve any tribal water rights; fourth, that the appellants’ claim was antecedent to that of the United States and the tribes; and fifth, that the reservation was repealed by the admission of Montana into the Union on February 22, 1859, under the equal footing doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the power of government could reserve waters and exempt them from appropriation under state law; therefore, the waters were reserved and were to continue for the tribes. Moreover, the Congressional Act of 1888, which established the reservation, implied and contemporaneously reserved tribal rights to an undiminished quality and volume of water. If the water rights were not reserved, the federal government would have reneged on its policy of advocating the reform of tribal tradition with the issuance of essential resources for the tribe’s existence. The state and its people did not thus gain rights over Milk River to dispose of it and the land at will under U.S. law. Dewi I. Ball See also Government-to-Government Relationship; Plenary Power; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

www.abc-clio.com

679

Meriam Report, 1928 The Meriam Report details the conditions of Indians in the 1920s and includes some discussion of treaty rights and claims. The report, officially published as The Problem of Indian Administration, is the compilation of material gathered at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Institute for Government Research (IGR). The Meriam Report provided the blueprint for the administration of Indian affairs for decades to come, including the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission. Since the intent of the Meriam Commission was to investigate the social and economic status of Indians and to evaluate how the BIA’s services to Indians compared to services provided to non-Indians, treaty issues were not a major consideration of the report. Lewis Meriam (an IGR employee) and his group of investigators spent seven months visiting ninety-five schools, hospitals, agencies, and other BIA facilities. Ray A. Brown, a University of Wisconsin law professor, was in charge of investigating legal issues. His observations are provided in Chapter 13, “Legal Aspects of the Indian Problem.” This chapter considers issues such as state versus national jurisdiction, citizenship, and court access. Chapter 13 of the report also considers treaty rights. Brown and the others recognized the validity of the treaties and of the federal government’s role as trustee, but they also believed that the treaties were outdated and that they unnecessarily complicated Indian law. The document explains that, up until 1871, the process of treating with Native American tribes was the same process used in negotiations with foreign countries. The result was a different legal foundation for each of the tribes, which the federal government was still forced to deal with. Brown and the others suggested that the BIA consider whether or not allowing this complicated system to continue was wise. The report further postulated that a commission could be appointed to “terminate” treaty rights and to create a Native American law code that did away with the “archaic provisions” that applied to certain tribes (Meriam 1928, 750). As an example, the document reprinted part of the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua with the Iroquois to show how some annuity payment systems were still in force. Brown and the rest of the commission were very much aware, however, of the long-standing claims based on treaty rights that many tribes had against

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

680

Indian Reorganization Act, 1934

the federal government. The report warns that no law code could be created until these claims were extinguished. Until tribes felt that claims have been settled, the document stated, they would not cooperate with the creation of a new law code and would expect a large cash settlement. Without congressional approval, however, tribes could not sue the United States in the court of claims. The haphazard process of getting an act through Congress and then actually marshalling forces for the suit were, Brown and the others felt, extremely cumbersome and ineffectual. To streamline the process, the report suggests that the secretary of the interior gather a staff specifically to look into the outstanding tribal claims and to draft legislation where warranted to obtain congressional approval. While the compiled Indian law code never materialized, the long-term impact of the report’s recommendations on legal aspects may be the Indian Claims Commission (ICC). Although not the first to explain such a court (Commissioner of Indian Affairs Francis Leupp proposed a similar solution in 1910), the report was the most influential document to make such a suggestion. The report’s recommendation to extinguish tribal claims met with approval, and Congress debated the issue through the 1930s. In 1946, Congress created the ICC, which acted as a court and awarded more than $800 million to tribes across the country (Rosenthal 1990, 266–267). Although the Meriam Report did not equate termination of the treaty obligations with termination of the trustee relationship, many in Congress who voted for the ICC did and subsequently supported the termination bill H.R. 108. In this matter, then, as in all others, the long-term effect of the Meriam Report is mixed. Angela Firkus See also House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953; Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946; Indian Claims Commission (ICC); Termination. References and Further Reading Meriam, Lewis, et al. 1928. The Problem of Indian Administration: report of a survey made at the request of Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to him, February 21, 1928. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Philp, Kenneth R. 1977. John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform 1920–1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Rosenthal, Harvey D. 1990. Their Day in Court: A History of the Indian Claims Commission. New York: Garland.

www.abc-clio.com

Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, was the cornerstone of Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier’s package of reforms, known collectively as the Indian New Deal. The legislation, although wide ranging, consisted of two principle features: it prohibited the future allotment of communally held Indian lands to individual tribal members in severalty, and it provided for the establishment of limited forms of tribal government and property management. The IRA formally terminated the process of allotment begun under the General Allotment Act of 1887, which had resulted in some two-thirds of tribally owned land passing into white ownership. Existing periods of trust on already-allotted land were extended indefinitely, and the act prohibited the further allotment of reservation land to individuals. Surplus land that had been opened for sale was withdrawn and returned to tribal control, and up to $2 million dollars per annum was made available for the acquisition of land, water, and surface rights (Deloria and Lytle 1984, 269). The second major objective of the act was to remodel tribal governments as self-governing municipal authorities. Collier’s original plan was for tribes to adopt written constitutions and bylaws reflecting traditional tribal decision-making and leader selection methods. A team of consultant anthropologists was employed to facilitate this process, but Congress refused funding and the unit was disbanded. As a result, tribal constitutions were largely drawn up in Washington, based on European American political conventions, and presented to Indian leaders unfamiliar with European American legal jargon. Tribes, rather than subtribal groups such as clans, bands, and families, were made the basis of the new political structures. The resulting constitutions, many of which were virtually identical regardless of the specifics of tribal traditions, made little provision for consensus-based decision making or for the role of spiritual leaders. The new constitutions were required to be ratified by a majority of adult members of a tribe through secret ballot. About 77 out of 258 tribes voted against accepting the act, perhaps reflecting a deep-seated distrust of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (McNickle 1993, 94). In addition to the cessation of allotment and the adoption of tribal constitutions, the IRA also estab-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

United States v. Creek Nation, 1935

lished a $10 million revolving credit fund to provide loans to Indian chartered corporations for promoting the economic development of tribes. A further sum of $250,000 per annum was made available for the payment of tuition and other expenses for vocational and trade schools, with not more than $50,000 allocated to high school and college students (Deloria and Lytle 1984, 144–145). The act also provided for the preferential hiring of suitably qualified Indians within the BIA. The IRA was part of a wider body of policies that constituted the Indian New Deal, including the Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act of 1936, which expanded the market for Indian-made arts and crafts and protected them with a government trademark. The constitutional right to freedom of religion for Indians was reaffirmed, and the revival of traditional dances and ceremonies was also encouraged. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act and the Alaska Native Reorganization Act, both of 1936, extended provisions similar to those contained in the IRA to the Oklahoma tribes (with the exception of the Osage) and Alaska Natives. Some scholars have argued that the rejection by Congress of certain key elements initially contained within Collier ’s proposals, such as a tribal court system and the adequate provision for the transfer of responsibilities from the BIA to tribal communities, resulted in the effective retention of colonial rule, with power concentrated in the hands of the secretary of the interior and federal bodies. Despite its limitations, the IRA represented a major divergence from the assimilationist impulse that had previously dominated federal policy regarding Native Americans. Annie Kirby See also Allotments; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Collier, John; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian New Deal; Meriam Report, 1928. References and Further Reading Collier, John. 1948. Indians of the Americas: The Long Hope. New York: Mentor Books. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books. McNickle, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism: Indian Survivals and Renewals. Repr., New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Taylor, Graham D. 1980. The New Deal and American Indian Tribalism, The Administration of the Indian Reorganization Act, 1934–45. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

www.abc-clio.com

681

Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1984. “A Fifty-Year Perspective on the Indian Reorganization Act.” American Anthropologist, 86(2): 279–289.

United States v. Creek Nation, 1935 This case was a lawsuit by the Muscogee Creek Nation/tribe of Indians against the United States to recover compensation for certain lands of that tribe charged to have been appropriated by the United States. From 1826 to 1840, the Muscogee Creek Indians, some voluntarily and some forcibly, left their homes in the East and relocated in Indian Territory in what is now the state of Oklahoma. Pursuant to a treaty dated February 14, 1833, the Creek Nation acquired a patent awarding the nation fee simple title to a part of the Indian Territory. Over time, the white population in Indian Territory outnumbered the Native American population. By a treaty of 1866, the Muscogee Creeks ceded to the United States the westerly half of that tract but expressly retained the easterly half. The United States stipulated that it would cause a north and south line separating the ceded from the unceded lands to be surveyed under the direction of the commissioner of Indian affairs and guaranteed the Creeks quiet possession of their unceded lands. In 1871, the commissioner of Indian affairs had the divisional line surveyed. A controversy arose as to whether the line was surveyed too far to the east and thereby encroached on unceded lands of the Creeks; but that controversy, if not terminated before, was put to rest and the line effectively recognized by an agreement made between the Muscogee Creek tribe and the United States in 1889. Combined with other surveys, including one made for another Native American tribe, the United States erroneously treated the strip of unceded Creek land by allottment to the other tribe. The error amounted to more than five thousand acres of land. The case finally came before the Supreme Court in 1926. It was agreed that the Creek tribe was entitled to compensation, but the parties were not agreed respecting the time as of which the value should be ascertained. The tribe contended for the value in 1926, when the suit was brought. The government argued for the value at time of appropriation, which it insisted was in 1873, when the survey was approved by the commissioner of Indian affairs

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

682

Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946

or its alternative, at the time the lands were disposed of under the act of 1891. When the Muscogee Creek demanded compensation for this lost land a century after the mistake was made, government lawyers argued that the Creek should have corrected the survey or complained earlier. In the majority opinion of United States v. Creek Nation, the Supreme Court disagreed, giving the Creek Fifth Amendment compensation from the government. According to the Court, “The tribe was a dependent Indian community under the guardianship of the United States . . . at the time, and as such it was entitled” to rely on the United States, its guardian, for needed protection of its interests. Although the United States had broad powers and wide discretion in managing Indian tribes’ affairs, it remained “subject to limitations inhering in such a guardianship,” including an obligation of care in handling Indian property, the Court said, and the case was dismissed. Fred Lindsay See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Treaty; Treaty with the Creek–June 14, 1866. References and Further Reading Debo, Angie. 1941. The Road to Disappearance: A History of the Creek Indians. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Green, Donald E. 1973. The Creek People. Phoenix, AZ: Indian Tribal Series. Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946 Signed into law by President Harry S Truman on August 13, 1946, the Indian Claims Commission Act established a commission empowered to hear the claims of American Indian communities against the federal government. The new commission consisted of a chief commissioner and two associate commissioners who heard claims from Indian communities based on issues of law and equity. Claimants could base their cases on the U.S. Constitution, laws, and executive orders, but most cases involved land transfers agreed upon through treaties. Although the law claimed to create a commission, the new agency functioned like a court. The law allowed the government to use all possible defenses against Indian

www.abc-clio.com

claims and to establish offsets reducing claim payments based on goods and services already provided by the government. The commission’s process for appeals involved both the court of claims and the Supreme Court. The act marked a shift in federal Indian policy from the Indian New Deal of the 1930s to the termination policy of the 1950s. Many supporters of the Indian Claims Commission argued that the commission offered compensation to Indian communities unfairly treated by the government; even the National Congress of American Indians, founded by American Indian leaders in 1944, endorsed the idea. However, other supporters of the commission viewed it as a first step to terminating the trust relationship between the federal government and Indian communities. These individuals believed that, until the government settled all Indian claims, federal involvement with Indian affairs could not end. Before the Indian Claims Commission heard Indian complaints against the government, the United States Court of Claims handled them. Congress established the court of claims in 1855 to hear suits against the federal government, but eight years later, in 1863, it prohibited the court from hearing claims based on treaties with Indian nations. In 1881, Congress granted the Choctaws the right to present their claims to the court, reopening an avenue for Indian complaints against the government but only through the difficult process of gaining permission from Congress for each individual case. Use of these special jurisdictional acts proved inefficient. Native communities filed 219 complaints with the court of claims before 1946; however, the court granted only thirty-five awards. Criticism of the system for Indian claims began as early as the 1890s. By the twentieth century, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Francis Leupp recommended the creation of a new court to hear only Indian claims, and in 1928, the Meriam Report suggested the creation of an Indian Claims Commission. The government continued to study various plans to settle Indian claims until passage of the Indian Claims Commission Act in 1946. Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier tried to include an Indian claims court in his Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and legislative efforts to create an Indian claims commission began in 1935. After 1935, Congress focused on the commission structure to handle claims, considering a number of bills before proposing H.R. 4497 in October of 1945. This bill, intro-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953

683

See also Cohen, Felix S.; Collier, John; Indian Claims Commission (ICC); Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Leupp, Francis Ellington; Meriam Report, 1928; Termination; Watkins, Arthur V. References and Further Reading Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Iverson, Peter. 1998. “We Are Still Here”: American Indians in the Twentieth Century. The American History Series. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, vol. 2. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Rosenthal, H. D. 1990. Their Day in Court: A History of the Indian Claims Commission. New York and London: Garland.

House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953

Photographed after the signing of the Indian Claims Commission Act are President Harry S Truman, seated, and from left to right, Senator Joseph C. O’Mahoney of Wyoming; Reginald Curry of the Ute Tribe; Julius Murray of the Uintah Ute Tribe; and Oscar Chapman, acting Secretary of the Interior. The Indian Claims Commission operated for 32 years, adjudicating the long-standing land and accounting claims of Native Americans against the federal government. (Bettmann/Corbis)

duced by Representative Henry M. Jackson of Washington, ultimately became the Indian Claims Commission Act, or Public Law 726 under the SeventyNinth Congress. The new law created a temporary agency empowered to hear claims for only ten years, but Congress maintained the court for thirty-two years, granting extension acts in 1956, 1961, 1967, 1972, and 1976. Despite the extended time frame, the commission did not settle all outstanding claims, forcing the court of claims to handle the remaining work. Overall, the commission decided 549 claims and awarded approximately $800 million during its existence, leaving the court of claims sixty-eight unresolved dockets after its dissolution on September 30, 1978. Jay Precht

www.abc-clio.com

House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 108 represented the beginning of official U.S. termination policy regarding Native Americans. Termination is an important aspect of twentieth-century federal Indian policy. It both drove and reflected the actions of federal officials throughout the 1950s and 1960s. HCR 108 indicated that all Indians within the United States were to assume all the rights and responsibilities of being American citizens. This included being subject to the same U.S. laws that applied to other Americans (House Report no. 841). The driving force behind HCR 108 was the idea of assimilation. The government concluded that Indians must be assimilated into the dominant culture in order to become real Americans. Federal officials formulated HCR 108 to end federal responsibility to Indian tribes and also to terminate the unique trustee relationship between tribes and the federal government. Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah, who also chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, and Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington State both adamantly believed that termination was the course to equality for Native Americans. Jackson introduced HCR 108 during the 83rd Congress, and on August 1, 1953, Congress adopted it. Congressional recognition did not make it law, but recognition did mean that Congress agreed with the fundamentals of the bill and that it supported a termination policy for Indian tribes (Fixico 1986, 97).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

684

Public Law 280, 1953

The government had determined that many tribes were already nearly assimilated, and these groups were the first targets of termination. HCR 108 specified that federal supervision be removed from tribes in California, Florida, New York, and Texas. It additionally named the Flathead tribe in Montana, the Klamath tribe in Oregon, the Menominee tribe in Minnesota, the Potawatami tribes in Kansas and Nebraska, and the Turtle Mountain Chippewa tribe in North Dakota as tribes who could survive well without federal supervision. The secretary of the interior expected a report on these tribes, and legislation relating to terminating them, by January 1, 1954, a mere four months after HCR 108 was approved (House Report no. 841). Although HCR 108 did not actually terminate tribes, it served as the legislative foundation for the government to carry out termination. The 84th Congress witnessed a flood of termination bills, and new termination legislation would continue until President Richard Nixon formally repealed the termination laws within HCR 108 in 1970. HCR 108 also paved the way for Public Law 280, a law that allowed several states to take jurisdictional control over some reservation services. Laurie Arnold See also Assimilation; Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968; Public Law 280, 1953; Termination; Watkins, Arthur V. References and Further Reading Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. House Concurrent Resolution 108. 1953. 67 U.S. Statutes at Large B132; House Report no. 841, 83I, serial II666. Philp, Kenneth R. 1999. Termination Revisited: American Indians on the Trail to Self-Determination, 1933–1953. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1995. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Public Law 280, 1953 Passed by Congress in 1953, Public Law (PL) 280 provided for the jurisdictional transfer of criminal and civil matters from Indian tribal control to state

www.abc-clio.com

control. Congress approved PL 280 to work in concert with a larger movement by the government to terminate Indian tribes. Termination, as described in House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 108, meant the end of federal supervision of Indian tribes and the end of Indians’ trustee status. PL 280 was an aggressive move by the government to discontinue tribal control over offenses committed on Indian lands. The law applied to Indian lands in California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. PL 280 did allow some tribes within these states to retain jurisdictional control, however. The Red Lake Reservation in Minnesota, the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon, and the Menominee Reservation in Wisconsin were all excluded from PL 280 (Prucha 1995, 1044). PL 280 was amended later by Congress to include Alaska. PL 280 emerged as a policy from the federal government, not as a request from Indian tribes. In fact, PL 280 did not require consultation or consent from the Indian tribes facing the new policy. President Dwight Eisenhower supported the foundations of PL 280, but when he signed off on the legislation, he asked Congress to amend the resolution when it reconvened. Eisenhower wanted to include requirements for consultation with tribes. Congress did write an amendment calling for consent from Indians, but the Interior Department opposed it, and terminationist senator Arthur Watkins wrote a vehement minority report against the consent amendment. Ultimately, the amendment failed (Prucha 1995, 1046). Decentralization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) comprised another aspect of PL 280. The law assumed that states would be able to handle efficiently their new responsibilities and jurisdiction, thus the BIA could close offices in the states of transfer. Determining which offices to close meant defining who was Indian, in order to count how many people would need services. This activity was also undertaken without consulting Indians (Fixico 1986, 112–113). The reason consultation proved to be such a contentious issue for the government, especially for the Department of the Interior, was simply that the government remained intent on terminating Indian tribes. The government did not wish to negotiate with groups who would, for the government’s intents and purposes, no longer exist after termination legislation obtained congressional approval. PL 280 remains emblematic of governmental assimilation policies in the postwar era. It was a fundamental building block of later termination legisla-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955

tion, and it illustrated the government’s concerted efforts to integrate Indians into the broader U.S. population. Laurie Arnold See also Assimilation; House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953; Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States; Termination; Watkins, Arthur V. References and Further Reading Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. House Concurrent Resolution 108. 1953. 67 U.S. Statutes at Large 588–590; House Report no. 848, 83-I, serial II666. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1995. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Philp, Kenneth R. 1999. Termination Revisited: American Indians on the Trail to Self-Determination, 1933–1953. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955 The United States purchased Alaska from Russia through the Treaty of 1867, but Native land rights were not mentioned in this treaty. The Tee-Hit-Ton band of the Tlingit Indians inhabited lands in Alaska that would later be established as the Tongass National Forest. In 1951, Congress sold timber from the Tongass National Forest to a private lumber company, and the Tee-Hit-Ton sued the United States for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In 1955, in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (348 U.S. 272), the Supreme Court decided against the Tee-Hit-Ton, affirming that, since Congress had never acknowledged the Tee-Hit-Ton and their land rights, then none existed. The United States acquired Alaska in 1867 from Russia, attaining 365,000 acres of land inhabited by thirty-one thousand Native Peoples and nine hundred white settlers. No treaties between the federal government and Native groups were concluded either before or after the Alaskan purchase. Federal policy regarding Alaskan Natives’ rights to land was mentioned in the Organic Act of 1884, which provided that “Indians or other persons in said district [Alaska] shall not be disturbed in the possession of

www.abc-clio.com

685

any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them, but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands are reserved for future legislation by Congress” (Organic Act, 1984) In 1947, Congress instructed the secretary of the interior to sell timber from the Tongass National Forest “notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights” (61 Stat. 920). The resolution defined that the receipts from the timber sale be placed in a special U.S. Treasury account until the timber and Native land rights had been defined. A private company was contracted to harvest all saleable timber from a section of the Tongass National Forest. The Tee-Hit-Ton, a band of the Tlingits, claimed aboriginal title of this land and proprietary interest in any timber sold. The Tee-Hit-Ton filed suit in the court of claims requesting recompense from the United States for the timber sale. The basis of their claim was the question of aboriginal land ownership and equitable rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court of claims ruled that the Tee-Hit-Ton did possess original Indian title or Indian right of occupancy, but because this was not stated in the Treaty of 1867 when Alaska was purchased, the Tee-Hit-Ton case was dismissed (128 Ct. Cl., at 92, 120F). The Tee-Hit-Ton appealed to the Supreme Court, which had previously heard cases concerning Native land issues, and Justice Stanley Reed submitted the final opinion that denied the claim. The Supreme Court declared two important points in their denial of the Tee-Hit-Ton claim. The first was that Congress did not acknowledge Native title to this land, illustrated by the sale of the timber from the Tongass National Forest. If Congress had never acknowledged the Tee-Hit-Ton’s right to occupy the forest, then the Native Peoples could not have held title and therefore did not have proprietary interest in the timber. The second point was the Court’s corroboration of the legal concept of the conqueror’s sovereignty over and ownership of Native lands. Justice Reed wrote that “every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty . . . it was not a sale but the conqueror’s will that deprived them of their land” (348 U.S. 272 [1955] at 289–290). The Supreme Court determined that Congress could extinguish Indian occupancy at its own judgment without recompense, quoting from Johnson v. M’Intosh (8 Wheat. 543, p. 587), “that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

686

Williams v. Lee, 1959

Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest.” Although Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1867, no treaty or agreement with any Alaskan Native group was ever accomplished. Without this recognition of their ancestral lands by the federal government, the Alaskan Natives were at a disadvantage for recognition of their sovereignty and rights. Under the reserved rights doctrine, tribal nations have tried to keep all powers, rights, and resources not expressly surrendered to the federal government. As the Alaskan Natives had never relinquished their rights under the Organic Act of 1884, it was reserved by Congress to grant them title. Susan Sánchez-Barnett See also Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sovereignty; Supremacy Clause. References and Further Reading Newton, Nell Jessup. 1980. “At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered,” 31 Hastings Law Journal 1215–1285. Organic Act. 1884. 23 U.S. Statutes at Large 24, Sec. 8. Sutton, Imre. 1985. Irredeemable America: The Indians’ Estate and Claims. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Williams v. Lee, 1959 Williams v. Lee is a seminal case in federal Indian law because the Supreme Court uses it to articulate what later became known as the infringement test—which works to protect the right of Indians to govern themselves. In other words, Williams was an important victory for tribal sovereignty against state power and remains so today. The plaintiff in Williams was a non-Indian who operated a general store within the Arizona portion of the Navajo Reservation. The defendants were Indians who had not paid for goods sold to them on credit. The store owner sued in state court to collect, which resulted in a judgment in his favor—dismissing the defendant Indians’ motion to transfer the case to tribal court as the proper jurisdiction. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Arizona state courts had proper jurisdiction over civil suits brought by non-Indians against Indians, even though the underlying transaction occurred

www.abc-clio.com

on the reservation, because Congress had not expressly forbidden state courts from exercising such jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with this presumptive interpretation. Indeed, arriving at the opposite conclusion, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, noted that, ever since the Court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) to deny effect to laws from the state of Georgia into Cherokee land, “when Congress has wished the States to exercise this power it has expressly granted them the jurisdiction which Worcester v. Georgia had denied” (Williams 1959). Consequently, states should be precluded from reading into congressional silence any implied power to regulate Indian affairs on Indian land. Justice Black also interpreted an 1868 treaty signed by General William T. Sherman and several Navajo chiefs and headmen as containing terms that implicitly led to the understanding that exclusive jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the Indians existed in whatever tribal government manifested itself. Moreover, against the weight of implied congressional intent, which Justice Black found in other sources, and the treaty, Arizona could not point to a federal grant of jurisdiction because it had not accepted such responsibility available to it under Public Law 280. In reversing the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Black then articulated the terms and application of the Court’s infringement test: “[T]o allow the exercise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of Indians to govern themselves. It is immaterial that respondent is not an Indian. He was on the Reservation and the transaction with an Indian took place there. The cases in this Court have consistently guarded the authority of Indian governments over their reservations. Congress recognized this authority in the Navajos in the Treaty of 1868, and has done so ever since. If this power is to be taken away from them, it is for Congress to do it” (Williams 1959). Interestingly, the Williams decision was delivered during the height of the government’s termination-era policies. This occurred when the Eisenhower administration and the attendant Congress were busily dismantling tribes and reservations in a misguided effort to assimilate Indians into the dominant white society. Although it is speculative to find a connection between Indian termination policies and other minority-related federal initiatives (such

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960

as public school integration) during this time, the government’s vision of solving the problems of the country’s diverse groups by blending them into the mainstream group is nonetheless evident. Michael J. Kelly See also Assimilation; Public Law 280, 1953; Termination; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Anderson, Terry L. 1995. Sovereign Nations or Reservations? An Economic History of American Indians. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Thorington, Nancy. 2000. “Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction over Matters Arising in Indian Country: A Roadmap for Improving Interaction among Tribal, State and Federal Governments,” 31 McGeorge Law Review 973–1042. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).

Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 The Canadian Bill of Rights is a piece of federal legislation adopted by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s government on August 10, 1960. Its provisions acknowledge an individual’s right to liberty, life, assembly, association, and other key human rights. A landmark legal decision in 1970 decided under the bill resulted in the elimination of a discriminatory section of the Indian Act. It thus paved the way for equal treatment of Indians before the law. John Diefenbaker began to push for increased governmental protection of human rights shortly after he became a member of Parliament in 1945. The human suffering experienced by many during World War II appalled Diefenbaker. He was particularly critical of the federal government’s wartime decision to intern Japanese Canadians and seize their property. This was done under the assumption that Japanese individuals could pose a threat to national security given that Canada was at war with Japan. The harshness of the decision angered many Canadians; they believed that the equality of Canadian citizens was being trampled upon. Diefenbaker was among those who believed that the government should guarantee certain rights and freedoms to all

www.abc-clio.com

687

Canadians, thus protecting them from rash governmental decisions based on political expediency, race, or even common approval. He and his supporters were not alone in their call for universal human rights and equality. The newly formed United Nations adopted the now famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. As a member nation, Canada endorsed the declaration, but there were increased calls for similar domestic legislation within Canada. It would be twelve years in coming. In 1957, Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative Party won a landslide victory in the federal election. As leader of the party, Diefenbaker became Canada’s next Prime Minister. He was free to pursue his goal of creating a uniquely Canadian version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It took a number of years to determine the structure and function of the legislation. There were many disagreements among various levels of government. The ultimate step to ensure equality rights for Canadian citizens would be to entrench such rights within the constitution itself. Unfortunately, Diefenbaker’s federal government could not agree with the provincial governments on a suitable way to amend the constitution to include a declaration of rights. Ultimately, the federal government unilaterally adopted the legislation on August 10, 1960. It was entitled the Canadian Bill of Rights. Its provisions did not apply to provincial laws because it was a piece of federal legislation and not a part of the constitution. Nevertheless, Diefenbaker believed that the bill’s moral authority would encourage the provinces to follow suit and that provincial dissention would be politically, if not legally, difficult. The Canadian Bill of Rights acknowledges an individual’s right to life, liberty, personal security, and equality before the law. It also protects an individual’s freedom of religion, speech, association, and assembly. Furthermore, the bill protects the freedom of the press. Laws must be crafted in accordance with these rights, and any infringement is permitted only by due process of law. The bill, therefore, sought to replace the excesses of rash decisions with sober thought and sound judgment. However, since the bill did not apply to provincial laws and did not override other legislation, it was difficult to tell how effective the Canadian Bill of Rights would be. Courts were hesitant to base their rulings on the bill because it was not enshrined in the constitution and thus was difficult to use to expand rights or strike down legislation. Many courts used the bill as

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

688

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960

a simple interpretive aid. Nevertheless, the Canadian Bill of Rights would be cited in a landmark legal decision. This was the case of The Queen v. Drybones. In 1967, a status Indian named Joseph Drybones was arrested for intoxication at the Old Slope Hotel in Yellowknife, capital city of the Northwest Territories. He was charged under Section 94 of the Indian Act, a piece of federal legislation that defines the rights and obligations between the Canadian government and Indians. Section 94 of the act made it illegal for an Indian to be intoxicated while off a reservation. Drybones argued that his punishment was discriminatory because it was not illegal for non-Indians to be intoxicated in a public place. Such discriminatory laws were inconsistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights, which guaranteed equality before the law. In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that Section 94 of the Indian Act was indeed discriminatory and rendered it inoperative. It was later removed from the Indian Act. The Queen v. Drybones became the landmark case decided under the Canadian Bill of Rights and was an important step in ensuring the equal treatment of Indians before Canadian law. Although the bill is still in effect, most of its provisions today are included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter was entrenched in the Canadian constitution in 1982 and applies to both federal and provincial levels of governments. Gordon Stienburg See also Indian Act of Canada, 1876. References and Further Reading Diefenbaker, John. 1976. One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honorable John G. Diefenbaker: The Years of Achievement, 1956 to 1962. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Isaac, Thomas. 2004. Aboriginal Law: Commentary, Cases, and Material. 3rd ed. Saskatoon: Purich. McMillan, Alan. 2004. First Peoples in Canada. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Smith, Denis. 1995. Rogue Tory: The Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker. Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter and Ross.

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960 In 1809, the Tuscarora Indian Nation acquired title in fee simple to 4,329 acres of land purchased from

www.abc-clio.com

the Holland Land Company near the town of Lewiston, New York. Previously, the Tuscarora Nation had been removed in 1775 from their lands in North Carolina and sent to reside with the Oneidas in central New York. In the twentieth century, the town of Lewiston, situated just below the Niagara Falls, came to be viewed as a prime location for the development of a hydroelectric project because of the high volume of water flowing down the Niagara River and over the falls. In 1958, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) applied for a license from the Federal Power Commission to begin development of a hydroelectric project in the Lewiston area. This application also included a request to expropriate 1,383 acres of Tuscarora lands for the construction of a storage reservoir associated with the project. The Tuscarora challenged the license application of the NYPA on the basis that the NYPA did not have the authority to take the Tuscarora lands. Despite these objections, the commission granted the license on January 30, 1958. The Tuscarora applied for a rehearing on the basis that the lands in question were part of their reservation lands and could not be taken away in the absence of a finding by the commission that the license would not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such said reservation was created or acquired. The commission, however, denied the application for a rehearing and held that the lands were not part of the reservation and were the best location for the reservoir. The Tuscarora then filed a petition for review with the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that the Tuscarora lands in question were in fact part of the reservation within the meaning of Sections 3(2) and 4(e) of the Federal Power Act and remanded the case to the commission. The case once again worked its way up to the court of appeals, where the court approved the license but instructed the commission specifically to exclude the power of the NYPA to condemn the lands of the Tuscarora for reservoir purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and entered a judgment on this matter on March 7, 1960. The two main issues before the Court were (1) whether the lands owned in fee simple by the Tuscarora were to be considered part of the reservation as defined under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C., s. 791[a] et seq.) and (2) whether such lands could be expropriated by the NYPA under the eminent domain powers conferred by Section 21 of the Federal Power Act.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969

A majority of the Supreme Court held that the Tuscarora lands held in fee simple were not part of the reservation as defined under the Federal Power Act. This act specifically defined reservations as “lands and interests in land owned by the United States and withdrawn, reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws, and lands and interest in lands acquired and held for any public purpose.” The Court thus distinguished the Tuscarora lands held in fee simple (land in which the United States did not have an interest) from the reservation lands as defined under the act (land in which the United States did have an interest). On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that general acts of Congress apply to all persons, including Indians and their lands. The Court stated that the Federal Power Act, a law of general and broad application, was intended to apply to lands owned by any person, including Indians, and that the act even specifically included and defined reservations. Therefore, the Court held that, because the act did apply to Indians and lands owned by Indians, a licensee (such as NYPA) could take, by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, the lands it required if it paid just compensation to the owner (the Tuscarora). In dissent, three justices of the Supreme Court held that the Tuscarora lands at issue were within the definition of reservations under the Federal Power Act. As such, the act did not authorize the taking of such a large tract of land, as the taking would interfere with the purpose for which the reservation was created: a permanent home for the Tuscarora. Lysane Cree See also Commerce Clause and Native Americans; Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849; Indian Treaty Making: A Native View. References and Further Reading Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and the Limits of Law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Federal Power Act. 1920. 16 U.S.C., s. 791(a) et seq. (last amended 1995). Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation (1960) 362 U.S. 584, 80 S. Ct. 858 (U.S.S.C.). Hauptman, Laurence M. 1988. Formulating American Indian Policy in New York State, 1970–1986. Albany: State University Press of New York.

www.abc-clio.com

689

Witt, Shirley Hill. 1972. The Tuscaroras. New York: Crowell-Collier Press.

Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969 Although commonly known as a rocky island in the San Francisco Bay that once served as a prison and is now a tourist attraction, to Native peoples Alcatraz represents political empowerment. In an attempt to seize control of their futures through social activism, Natives occupied and took control of the island three different times during the 1960s: on March 9, 1964; on November 9, 1969; and on November 20, 1969. For Native Americans, the occupations resulted in positive changes and advancements in the face of overwhelming government resistance. Although seventy-two other federal facilities were occupied by Indian people, Alcatraz is considered the most important. It was a success in that the U.S. government policy of termination (HR 108, 1953) ended and a policy of Indian self-determination became official several years later, in 1975. In the early 1970s, President Nixon returned forty-eight thousand acres of land to the Taos Indians, and occupied lands near Davis, California, became a Native American university. According to local tribal oral history, “The Rock” was home to the Costanoan and Ohlone peoples, who lived in the coastal area between Point Sur and the San Francisco Bay ten thousand to twentyone thousand years before the arrival of Spanish and Portuguese explorers. Alcatraz was originally used by Natives as a camping and food-gathering location, as a penal colony for those who violated social taboos, and also as a hideout for Indians fleeing from the California mission system. Due to government termination policy during the last half of the twentieth century, tribes found themselves dissolved, no longer existing as legal entities. In an attempt to smooth over the resulting upset and displacement, President Dwight Eisenhower promoted the government’s post–World War II relocation program by offering financial assistance to Natives to move to cities targeted by the program. Thousands of Indians moved from reservations into the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose areas looking for employment and a better life. Indian identity was challenged when Indians were forced to adjust

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

690

Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969

A tipi is erected on Alcatraz to symbolize the claim to native lands during the Native American occupation of the island in November 1969. A group called the Indians of All Tribes occupied the island until 1971, residing in abandoned buildings and living off food ferried over from mainland San Francisco. The protest was one of the more dramatic events of the ongoing Native American rights movement. (Bettmann/Corbis)

to living in urban communities, particularly when the new situation scattered them in poor neighborhoods throughout the Bay Area. After eighteen years of relocation, sixty-seven thousand Indians, many from tribes in other states, resided in the Bay Area (De La Torre, 2001, 12). The new urban Natives found solidarity while battling the experiences of racism, discrimination, and disillusionment, incurred when relocation propaganda did not live up to its promises. As multitribal identity formed, churches, student groups, Indian centers, and other associations began to grow during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Newly enacted educational opportunity programs found Natives enrolling at the University of California, Berkeley; University of Minnesota; and San Francisco State University. These schools developed the first Native American studies programs in the country.

www.abc-clio.com

On March 9, 1964, the federal government discontinued the use of Alcatraz as a federal penitentiary. Allen Cottier, president of the American Indian Council, organized a plan for five Sioux Indians to take possession of the island. Led by Richard McKenzie, the group attempted to buy title to Alcatraz by offering the federal government 47 cents per acre, demanding the island be used for a cultural center and an Indian university. Four hours later, they were removed from the island—but the seed was planted that American Indians could and would collectively regain control of their own destinies. Encouraged, American Indian students at SFSU formed the Student Council of American Natives (SCAN), which offered support and dialogue about their concerns. SCAN evolved into the Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations (SKINS), led by Richard Oakes, who became instrumental in subsequent occupations of Alcatraz. Students at UCB also

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965

formed an organization, the United Native Americans, to promote self-determination. The two groups, coordinated by LaNada Boyer, asserted a plan to develop student activism. Red Power was born, supported, and nourished by the political unrest percolating and pouring forth in the Bay Area during the 1960s. On November 9, 1969, Alcatraz was seized and occupied by fourteen Native American college students, who for nineteen hours laid symbolic claim to the island. Led by Richard Oakes, the group called themselves Indians of All Tribes. Although the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868 referred to government land in the northern plains, not California, those in the group who were from tribes that were party to the treaty used it as justification to file for a homestead on the island. They left Alcatraz fueled by the momentum and support they received from the Bay Area intertribal community that had witnessed and had been victims of the federal seizure of Native lands. Realizing that a prolonged occupation was not only possible but necessary to stop the attempted dissolution of Native Americans into the urban melting pot, Richard Oakes again led an occupation of Alcatraz, this one lasting from November 20, 1969, until June 10, 1971. Oakes was joined by approximately one hundred Indians, who immediately began organizing. They put a council into place and assigned jobs to everyone on the island, such as security, sanitation, and schooling. All decisions were made by unanimous consent of the people. After insisting that the island be vacated, the federal government attempted to barricade it, without success. Eventually, the government agreed to negotiate with the Indian council but insisted that the Indians could not establish a university, a cultural center, or a museum, let alone ownership of the island. At one point, occupiers were offered a portion of Fort Miley in San Francisco but chose to hold out for full title to Alcatraz. Electrical power to the island was shut off, and the freshwater barge was shut down. Three days later, several historic buildings were destroyed when fire broke out. Further damage to buildings occurred when copper wiring and tubing were stripped and sold to gain money for food. By early 1970, Indian organization on Alcatraz became fragmented. Two groups rose in opposition to Richard Oakes and as students returned to school; they were replaced by urban people who had not

www.abc-clio.com

691

been involved from the beginning of the occupation, including hippies and members of the drug culture. Oakes left the island after his thirteen-year-old daughter fell three floors down a stairwell and died; thereafter, each group tried to assert itself as leader, which not only ignited confusion and disarray but ruptured the unity of the protest and deflated commitment to the cause. Even though it was determined that the collision of two tankers had not been caused by lack of a light or foghorn on Alcatraz, on June 10, 1971, President Richard Nixon issued the order that federal marshals, FBI agents, and Special Forces swarm the island and remove the five women, four children, and six unarmed Indian men who remained there. The occupation was over. Denise Lajetta See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Oakes, Richard; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho–April 29, 1868. References and Further Reading De La Torre, Joely. 2001. “From Activism to Academics: The Evolution of American Indian Studies at San Francisco State 1968–2001.” Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 2(1): 11–20. Johnson, Troy R. 1996. Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian Activism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Johnson, Troy R., and Joane Nagel, eds. 1994. “Alcatraz Revisited: The 25th Anniversary of the Occupation, 1969–1971.” Special Edition. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 18(4).

Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965 This case concerned whether the State of Arizona could levy a tax on the “gross proceeds of sales, or gross income” of 2 percent on a retail trading business with a trading license from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs operating on the Navajo Reservation. The 1868 Navajo treaty enjoined tribal jurisdictional exclusivity over the land and the use of the land and precluded state jurisdiction and authority therein. Warren Trading Post Company presented two defenses. First, state tax levied on income taken from a reservation was invalid as a consequence of the commerce clause—Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which vested in Congress the unilateral power to regulate commerce with the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

692

Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968

tribes. Second, state tax contravened the congressional meaning of the commerce clause, which enabled Congress to regulate traders and trade with the tribes and allowed the tribes to govern themselves within their reservations. The state supreme court upheld the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, through statutes and regulations, Congress had assumed the authority to levy taxes on traders operating within reservations. Consequently, the State of Arizona could not levy taxes on traders within a reservation or enforce extra burdens on the traders or the tribes. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the treaty with the Navajo in 1868 had created a reservation that was a permanent home set apart for the tribe. From the establishment of the reservation, Congress did not interfere with Navajo internal affairs, and thus the tribe controlled their own affairs free of state control. Before the 1868 Navajo treaty, the tribe had governed themselves free of state restriction, and this was a continuation of that policy. The Court cited Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and stated that Native Americans were treated as distinct nations, under the protection of treaties and completely separated from the jurisdiction of the states. Moreover, the federal government had enacted statutes and treaties that provided a plethora of controls over people wishing to trade with Native Americans. The Supreme Court proceeded to examine the history of federal control and authority over tribal commerce. The Court stated that Congress had enacted statutes from 1790, whereby traders were obliged to obtain a trading license from federal officials, to 1901, whereby the commissioner of Indian affairs prescribed trade regulations with Native American tribes. Under the statutes, the commissioner of Indian affairs had the sole right to issue licenses to traders wishing to trade with the tribes; the commissioner could also establish regulations upon them. The Supreme Court’s examination of the historical development of congressional regulation and statutes regarding commerce with Native American tribes elucidated that Congress had provided for the right of the trader to trade with the Navajo; the Court further found that the State of Arizona lacked the authority and jurisdiction to impose taxes upon the trader within the Navajo Reservation. The statutes relied upon by the Court were ruled to bar states from taxing traders on their sales, as granted

www.abc-clio.com

by a license from the commissioner, on reservation lands. The Court held that, from the evaluation of statutes and the historical assessment of the treaty of 1868, the right of the State of Arizona to enforce its taxing authority on federal traders on the Navajo Reservation (which was set aside by treaty) was invalid and without authority. Congressional purpose provided that no burden would be imposed upon traders wishing to trade on Native American reservations except as enacted by Congress. The Supreme Court held that to allow state taxation on reservations would impose financial burdens on both the tribe and the traders. Furthermore, it would fracture the congressional statutory plan to protect Native Americans against unfair prices. Federal legislation did not provide the states with any control within the Navajo Reservation and thus did not sanction the use of state taxes therein. Taxing the sales of a federally licensed trader on reservation lands could not apply, and thus the judgment of the supreme court of Arizona was reversed. Federal statutes barred the imposition of taxes in this case, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether the tax was barred under the argument that the commerce clause gave Congress power to regulate commerce with the tribes. Dewi I. Ball See also Commerce Clause; Government-toGovernment Relationship; Indian Territory; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968 The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1333) was enacted on April 11, 1968, and is like the Bill of Rights in that it guarantees to Native peoples personal freedoms against actions of the federal

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968

government. The act was born out of necessity. Public Law 280, passed in 1954, transferred civil and criminal jurisdiction of reservation Indians to six states (Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin). Public Law 280 created a certain amount of lawlessness and reduced federal programs to Indian citizens, for example, welfare, health, education, and law enforcement programs in California. Other examples include allegations of maltreatment or lack of protection by law enforcement officers because reservations have no tax base, or because in many instances the response time (several miles) makes law enforcement almost nonexistent. Because Indian tribes were not subject to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, the Indian Civil Rights Act was passed in response to lawlessness before as well as after the passage of PL 280 and in response to other issues pertaining to crime in Indian country. The ICRA is divided into seven titles: Title I is the act itself. Title II encompasses the definition of an Indian tribe, selfgovernment, tribal courts, and Indian rights. Title III establishes the model code governing courts of Indian offenses. Title IV covers jurisdiction over criminal and civil actions (PL 280). Title V is an amendment to the United States Code, Section 1153 of Title 18. Title VI deals with the employment of legal counsel by Indian tribes. Title VII deals with materials relating to the constitutional rights of Indians and authorizes the secretary of the interior to make available certain documents, manuscripts, and opinions relating to Indian law and to republish these documents. The documents include Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Volumes 1 and 2, and Federal Indian Law. The most important title, Title II, defines an Indian tribe, self-government, and the tribal court, as well as the constitutional rights provided by the act and habeas corpus (release from unlawful restraint). The constitutional rights provided in Title II of the ICRA are as follows: No Indian tribe in exercising powers of selfgovernment shall (1) make or enforce any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances; (2) violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor issue warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu-

www.abc-clio.com

693

larly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized; (3) subject any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy; (4) compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; (5) take any private property for a public use without just compensations; (6) deny to any person in a criminal proceeding the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his defense; (7) require excessive bail, impose excessive fines, inflict cruel and unusual punishments, and in no event impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater then imprisonment for a term of one year or a fine of $5,000, or both; (8) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law; (9) pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law; or (10) deny to any person accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment the right, upon request, to a trial by jury of not less than six persons. (Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams 1998, 506) Kurt T. Mantonya See also Indian Country; Public Law 280, 1953. References and Further Reading Clarkin, Thomas. 2001. Federal Indian Policy: In the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations 1961–1969. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle. 1983. American Indians, American Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press. Getches, David H., Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Jr. 1998. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West. Johnson, Troy R., ed. 1999. Contemporary Native American Political Issues. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968 The 1968 Supreme Court decision on hunting and fishing rights for the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin had its roots in the policy of termination that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

694

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968

A protestor wrapped in a U.S. flag dances before a police roadblock during the takeover of the Alexian Brothers Novitiate by the Menominee Warrior Society on January 1, 1975. The Warrior Society had objected to the slow reorganization of the Menominee Tribe after federal services were restored. (Corbis/Bettmann-UPI)

dominated federal Indian legislation during the 1950s and 1960s. The goal of termination was the ending of the trust relationship that existed between the tribes and the federal government. This was to be accomplished by the federal government’s divestiture of all of the assets it held for the tribes either to individual Indians or to tribal corporations, thus making Indian assets taxable and ending federal treaty responsibilities. This would facilitate what had been the main goals of many bureaucrats since the Dawes Act: the end of Indian tribal sovereignty and the complete assimilation of American Indians into mainstream American society. After the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officials set to work to determine which tribes were most economically ready for the discontinuation of

www.abc-clio.com

federal services and supervision. The Menominee tribe already had a successful lumber operation on its reservation, which the BIA believed would be a viable basis of support for the tribe. Adding to this was the fact that, in 1951, the tribe had won a sixteen-year battle with the federal government over the mismanagement of Menominee forest resources, resulting in an $8.5 million award, which Utah senator and termination proponent Arthur V. Watkins made clear was tied to the tribe’s acceptance of their termination, which was set forth in Public Law 399. For the remainder of the decade, the tribe struggled with making termination happen with as little impact on the tribal population as possible. All tribal property was to be transferred to a new corporation, Menominee Enterprises, Inc., in which all tribal members were shareholders. The reservation land was to become Menominee County. All this was finally accomplished by 1961, but the poverty that has constantly plagued Indian peoples only intensified with the withdrawal of federal oversight. Tribal assets, including the lumber operation, became subject to state taxes, and the once- prosperous reservation became the state’s newest and poorest county. The issue of hunting and fishing rights came to the fore as a result of termination. Only a year after termination was accomplished, the state of Wisconsin took the position that termination had ended the provisions of the Treaty of Wolf River, which had guaranteed the tribe hunting and fishing rights on the reservation. Even before termination, Public Law 280 (1953) had given state and local authorities jurisdiction over Indian land. The state prosecuted three Menominees for violating state gaming regulations. The tribe brought suit in the court of claims to recover damages from the loss of hunting and fishing rights, and their claims were upheld. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in its decision, Justice William O. Douglas argued, “[I]t is therefore argued with force that the Termination Act of 1954, which became fully effective in 1961, submitted the hunting and fishing rights of the Indians to state regulation and control. We reach, however, the opposite conclusion.” Further, he stated, “We find it difficult to believe that Congress, without explicit statement, would subject the United States to a claim for compensation by destroying property rights conferred by treaty, particularly when Congress was purporting by the Termination Act to settle the Government’s financial obligations toward the Indians.”

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968

In essence, the Court declared that the doctrine of reserved rights, the idea that tribes retain rights to their land’s resources until such rights are specifically ceded—rights that previously applied mainly to land, water, and mineral rights—applied to hunting and fishing rights as well. Even though the Menominee Reservation was terminated, their right to practice their treaty-protected lifeways related to that land was not. Steven L. Danver See also Deer, Ada E.; House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953; Public Law 280, 1953; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sovereignty; Watkins, Arthur V. References and Further Reading Hosmer, Brian. 1997. “Reflections on Indian Cultural ‘Brokers’: Reginald Oshkosh, Mitchell Oshkenaniew, and the Politics of Menominee Lumbering.” Ethnohistory 44:(3). Hosmer, Brian. 2002. “Blackjack and Lumberjack: Economic Development and Cultural Continuity among Twentieth Century Menominees.” In Peoples of Persistence, ed. R. David Edmunds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ourada, Patricia K. 1979. The Menominee Indians: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1995. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968 The premise of the case concerned whether the Puyallup and Nisqually tribes could assert rights to take fish under Article 3 of the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854, “. . . at all usual and accustomed grounds . . . in common with all citizens of the territory. . . .” Also involved were the conservation measures adopted by the state of Washington with regard to its territorial waters. The conservation measures concerned the use of tribal set nets to catch salmon and steelhead, anadromous fish that were covered by treaty rights. The case addressed two central issues. First, the construction of the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854 was interpreted liberally in favor of the tribes but did not give tribal members the exclusive right to fish off reservation. Second, the constitutional implication of conservation measures adopted by Washington State was deemed a valid basis for extinguishment of treaty rights, and state regulation could be imposed upon the tribes. Fur-

www.abc-clio.com

695

thermore, the state supreme court held that treaty fishing rights could be regulated by Washington State. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held, first, that the state could regulate tribal off-reservation fishing, in accordance with “all citizens of the territory”; second, that the use of set nets at various locations was remanded to the trial court to determine whether it was a “reasonable and necessary” measure. Washington State had prescribed regulations pertaining to fishing within its territorial waters, and these included the time, the areas, the tools, and the means by which fish could be caught. The Court had to decide whether, under the aegis of the treaty of 1854, the Puyallup and Nisqually could use set nets on the rivers in question. The tribes fished both commercially and for subsistence; these facts, in turn, had to be examined against the legality or illegality of the use of set nets, if Washington State laws were upheld. The U.S. Supreme Court cited United States v. Winans (1905), in which the Yakima tribe relied on treaty rights to protect the taking of fish in areas used with other citizens. In that case, private individuals had bought land, obtained state fishing rights, and sought to exclude Native Americans from the land. The Court ruled that a change in ownership of the river borders did not revoke the treaty rights, for they were “continuing” rights. This was due to the importance of the covenant entered into by both the tribes and the United States. Douglas stated that the treaties were to be interpreted liberally in favor of the tribes. The court proceeded to address, first, whether set nets were allowed under the auspices of the treaty. It was assumed at the time of the treaty that the use of the nets and commercial fishing were customary, but the treaty did not stipulate the purpose, mode, or manner of fishing. Second, the Court addressed whether the terms of the treaty to fish “at all usual and accustomed places” was applicable to the tribes. The right to fish at the respective places was not exclusive but one “in common with all citizens of the Territory.” State citizens were thus regulated, and it followed that the tribe could also be regulated in the interest of conservation, provided that regulations met the appropriate standards and did not discriminate against the tribes. Similar treaty language was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tulee v. Washington (1942), which held that the tribe retained the treaty right to fish off reservation on “. . . all usual and accustomed

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

696

Sohappy v. Smith and Unites States v. Oregon, 1969

grounds. . . .” and that this right could not be impinged upon by the state. The issue was “the time and manner of fishing,” and this was not defined by the treaty. Thus, nondiscriminatory measures of conservation were imposed on the tribe. A similar opinion was decreed in this case. The tribe retained treaty rights to fish off reservation but were dependent on state regulation and measures of conservation. Thus, certain practices were prohibited to citizens and Native Americans alike, and this included the use of set nets in freshwater. Conversely, state regulation permitted citizens and thus Native Americans the use of purse seines and other nets in salt water for commercial fishing. The former was justified for reasons of conservation because fishing by hook sustained the numbers of fish, in contrast to set nets, which greatly reduced the numbers of fish. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded to trial court the question of whether the prohibition of set nets used in freshwater was a “reasonable and necessary” conservation measure; the findings had to address equal protection for both tribes and citizens with relevance to the phrase “in common with.” Dewi I. Ball See also Medicine Creek, Washington; Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999; Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977; Treaty; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. References and Further Reading Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon, 1969 Federal district court judge Robert Belloni’s combined ruling in Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon generally receives less recognition than the famous Boldt Decision of 1974 (United States v. Washington), which was the culmination of nearly a century of litigation over Northwest Indian treaty fish-

www.abc-clio.com

ing. As even Judge George Boldt acknowledged, however, the Sohappy opinion paved the way for his own by firmly establishing the right of four Columbia River treaty tribes to take “a fair and equitable share” of the salmon passing through their “usual and accustomed places.” Although Belloni’s ruling permitted state regulation of Indian fishing, it also limited state regulatory powers and offered the tribes a meaningful role in the rule-making process. Thus, despite some unresolved questions and angry objections from both sides, the Sohappy decision represented a landmark victory for tribal sovereignty and an important step toward co-management of the resource. The case revolved around conflicting interpretations of the treaty of 1855 between the United States and the confederated tribes and bands of the Yakama Indian Nation. In Article 3 of the agreement, the Indians had reserved “the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory. . . .” The precise meaning of that phrase became increasingly controversial as salmon runs declined due to overfishing, dam building, and the destruction of spawning habitat by logging, grazing, and irrigation projects. In the early twentieth century, the states of Oregon and Washington began to pass conservation laws that often discriminated against Indian methods or fell most heavily on the terminal fisheries (rivers and tributary streams) where Indians traditionally caught salmon. State authorities insisted that Indians fishing off the reservation possessed only the “in common” right of ordinary citizens and therefore had to obey state laws. To the treaty tribes, however, state regulation represented a violation of their sovereignty as well as a threat to the cultural, spiritual, and economic well-being of Indian fishing families. The state-tribal conflict on the Columbia River peaked in the late 1960s. By 1966, the Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes had passed their own ordinances to regulate tribal fishing, but the states ignored them and continued to arrest Indians for violating state laws. In 1968, David and Richard Sohappy, enrolled members of the Yakama Nation, spent four days in jail for illegal fishing. After receiving suspended thirty-day sentences and $250 fines, they joined twelve other Yakama in a lawsuit against Oregon Fish Commission chairman McKee A. Smith and a slate of Oregon fish and game officials. The plaintiffs asked the court to define their treaty fish-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970

ing rights and the extent to which the state could regulate them. Because sovereign immunity prevented them from suing the state directly, U.S. assistant regional interior solicitor George Dysart pushed for a separate federal action that could bind the state government. Although the Yakama tribal council had some doubts about the case, it chose to intervene in United States v. Oregon along with the Nez Perce tribe, the confederated tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and the confederated tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. Judge Robert Belloni merged Sohappy v. Smith with United States v. Oregon in his decision of April 1969, which held that Oregon’s restrictions on treaty fishing were invalid and discriminatory. Although the state could regulate the off-reservation Indian fishery, its powers were limited by certain conditions and standards, which Belloni spelled out in his written opinion and decree. Specifically, he ruled that state regulations must be proven “reasonable and necessary for conservation,” must be the least restrictive possible, and must not discriminate against Indians, who could potentially fish at times and with gear prohibited to non-Indians. The tribes must be given the opportunity for meaningful participation in the regulatory process, and they had a right to “a fair and equitable share” of the catch. Belloni did not define “fair share” or consider the issue of tribal self-regulation, leaving them for Boldt to address five years later. The Sohappy/Oregon ruling received mixed reviews from Indians and non-Indians alike. Some tribal leaders felt that it conceded too much to the states, whereas Native fishers like the Sohappys continued to insist that neither the tribes nor the states could regulate them. Non-Indian commercial and sport fishermen also considered the ruling unfair and detrimental to their interests, and Washington officials refused to implement it until 1979. By continuing his jurisdiction in the case, however, Belloni ensured that the plaintiffs could “seek timely and effective judicial review.” Moreover, his “meaningful participation” standard would help shape fishery management practices as the tribes and the states gradually moved from litigation to cooperation. Andrew H. Fisher See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Sohappy, David, Sr.; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854; Treaty with the Yakama–June 9, 1855.

www.abc-clio.com

697

References and Further Reading Berg, Laura. 1995. “Let Them Do As They Have Promised: A History of U.S. v. Oregon and Four Tribes’ Fight for Columbia River Salmon.” Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 3(1): 7–18. Parman, Donald L. 1984. “Inconstant Advocacy: The Erosion of Indian Fishing Rights In the Pacific Northwest, 1933–1956.” Pacific Historical Review 53 (May): 163–189. Ulrich, Roberta. 1999. Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and the Columbia River. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970 President Richard Nixon repudiated the termination era and officially transitioned U.S. Indian policy toward tribal self-determination on July 8, 1970, with the delivery of his Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs. The message reaffirmed the U.S. responsibility to Indians but did so in a way that called for giving Indians a greater role in controlling the programs that affected them. The message formed the basis for the subsequently enacted Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and helped establish Nixon as “arguably the most ardent supporter of Indian sovereignty” (Clarkson 2002). Nixon’s special message forms the line used by most scholars to separate the termination era from the present self-determination period. Nixon called for a rejection of termination as an unfair and ineffective policy. He stated, “Both as a matter of justice and as a matter of enlightened social policy . . . [t]he time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.” Nixon saw termination as retarding Indian initiative because all experimentation was potentially very costly, as it had to be set against “the threat of eventual termination.” Nixon rejected the “burgeoning Federal bureaucracy” in favor of the new goal, “to strengthen the Indian’s sense of autonomy without threatening (through termination) his sense of community.” Through nine related policy suggestions for Congress, Nixon was attempting not simply to transfer control over to Indian hands but also to provide more resources for Indians. The message’s first two

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

698

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971

goals, rejecting termination and the [tribal] right to control and operate federal programs, were in keeping with the general focus on shifting control. Nixon argued that the right to assume control over federal programs, as well as the right of retrocession, belonged with the tribes and was not dependent on the will of the U.S. government. However, the message significantly included the notion that the United States must respond “to just grievances which are especially important to the Indian people,” which Nixon used to further the particular case for the restoration of certain sacred lands. Additional funding was the focus of three of the nine goals: economic development legislation, more money for Indian health, and helping urban Indians. The economic development legislation goal, for example, called for a tripling of the lending for Indian development projects. Finally, two goals—establishment of an Indian trust counsel authority and an assistant secretary for Indian and territorial affairs—were directed at improving the internal ability of the U.S. government to meet its responsibilities to tribes. Aspects of the 1970 message’s idea of selfdetermination can be found in the presidencies and Indian policies of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson (Bielski 2000). However, as attested to by a 2000 U.S. congressional resolution, Nixon’s special message generally is credited with “[setting] forth the foundation for a new, more enlightened Federal Indian policy grounded in economic self-reliance and political self-determination” (U.S. Congress 2000). Most studies of the shifts in federal policy between assimilation and isolation rightly highlight Nixon’s special message and express the opinion that “Indian tribes, members of Congress, and the Administration started again down the road which had initially been paved by the Indian Reorganization Act. The legislation that occurred as a result of Nixon’s message of 1970 became the foundation for federal Indian policy for the remainder of the century” (Johnson and Hamilton 1995). Ezra Rosser See also Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971; American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Government-toGovernment Relationship; Sovereignty; Termination. References and Further Reading Bielski, John R. 2000. “Judicial Denial of Sovereignty for Alaskan Natives: An End to the SelfDetermination Era,” 73 Temple Law Review 1279, 1282.

www.abc-clio.com

Clarkson, Gavin. 2002. “Not Because They Are Brown, But Because of EA: Why the Good Guys Lost in Rice v. Cayetano, and Why They Didn’t Have to Lose,” 7 Michigan Journal of Race and Law 317, 332. Johnson, Tadd M., and James Hamilton. 1995. “Symposium Rules of the Game: Sovereignty and the Native American Nation: SelfGovernance for Indian Tribes: From Paternalism to Empowerment,” 27 Connecticut Law Review 1251, 1262. Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations for Indian Policy [Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs], H.R. Doc. No. 91–363, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (July 8, 1970). U.S. Congress. Senate. Resolution, “Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the Policy of Indian Self-Determination.” S Res. 277 IS 106th Cong., 2d sess. (March 23, 2000).

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 Indigenous peoples of Alaska are commonly known as Alaska Natives. These include Aleut, Inuit, Tlingit, Haida, and Athapascan. Much reduced in number by disease and social pathologies common to the social suffering wrought by colonialism, after the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) came into effect, approximately eighty thousand Alaska Natives were enrolled as shareholders in thirteen regional corporations. “They said go out and save who we are.” This was the basic instruction of Alaska indigenous elders to young leaders of the Alaska Federation of Natives negotiating the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. When Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, indigenous peoples’ rights and land ownership remained unresolved. When Alaska was granted statehood in 1959, the state began to impose laws and regulations on Alaska Natives; it also began to select the 104 million acres it had been granted by the U.S. government as a condition of statehood. Pressures quickly mounted associated with lack of consultation regarding activities that promised to massively encroach on indigenous people’s lands and resources. These included an experimental nuclear explosion to create a deep-sea port at Point Hope, a migratory birds protection treaty with Canada and Mexico, and a proposed oil pipeline across indigenous lands. During the 1960s, the diverse indigenous peoples of the state drew

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971

together, forming the Alaska Federation of Natives to fight dispossession and exploitation. In 1966, the federation called for a moratorium on development until indigenous peoples’ land rights and ownership were recognized. Discovery of oil reserves at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 played a major role in motivating a land and rights agreement. The federal government was keen to develop domestic oil resources, the state was anxious for economic development and its benefits, and oil companies sought to profit from their discoveries. Faced with massive resource development in an environment of long-unresolved aboriginal rights and title, conditions for reaching an agreement were favorable. ANCSA created twelve regional corporations (and later an additional corporation for Natives residing outside of Alaska). Its provisions included ownership of forty-four million acres of land and $962.5 million to compensate Alaska Natives for extinguishing their aboriginal rights. This transformed the relationship between Alaska Natives and their homelands. Ownership did not rest with tribal governments; instead, land title was held by the twelve regional corporations and approximately 220 local village corporations. Indigenous or tribal governments were bypassed, for ANCSA contained no specific provisions for internal self-government or tribal government development. Membership was open to people recognized as one-fourth degree or more Native ancestry, born on or before December 18, 1971. The model chosen by negotiators departed from the reservation system south of the 48th parallel. The ANCSA model placed land and monetary compensation largely with village and regional corporations. At the time, the model was viewed as a structure securing land ownership and as a sound base for economic participation through for-profit corporations. Implementing the ANCSA as it was originally written proved problematic; as a result, ANCSA provisions causing social and political tension were amended. For example, restricting membership to Alaska Natives born before a certain date effectively excluded those born after that date (“afterborns”) from participation. Legislative amendments allowed Natives born after December 1971 to participate, although at the discretion of shareholders of individual corporations. Loss of land assets as a result of bankruptcy and the forced exploitation of resources by corporations were addressed by further amendments in 1991, under which undeveloped land cannot be taxed or taken

www.abc-clio.com

699

The Trans-Alaska pipeline snakes across a vast expanse of land. The pipeline has the capacity to move 2 million barrels of oil each day. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act allows Alaska natives to receive a portion of the profits from the oil sales as a part of the agreement of $962.5 million and 44 million acres of land. (Corel)

through adverse possession, creditors, bankruptcy, or dissolution. Major concerns arose over the fact that stock in the corporations was made available for sale after a set time period, potentially fulfilling goals of termination by allowing nonindigenous buyers and by increasing nonindigenous participation not only in land ownership but also in corporate decision making serving both economic and cultural goals. Additional amendments therefore stipulated that stock restrictions could remain in force unless shareholders voted to remove them. Basic elements of ANCSA’s corporate structure were almost immediately at odds with indigenous peoples’ view of the agreement as a way to strengthen communities, culture, and identity, and as a basis for their continued existence as indigenous peoples. Fortunately, legislative remedies for difficulties in implementation have been made available. Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox See also Indian Claims Commission (ICC). References and Further Reading Berger, Thomas R. 1985. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York: Hill and Wang.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

700

Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972

Case, David S. 2002. Alaska Natives and American Laws. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972 The Trail of Broken Treaties was a protest organized by Native American activists in 1972. Leaders of the protest included Dennis Banks and Russell Means of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and Hank Adams, an organizer of the fish-in protests in the Pacific Northwest. The protest, which consisted of a caravan of protestors crossing the country from the West Coast to Washington, D.C., was intended to call

attention to the issues affecting Native Americans; it made treaty rights a major focus of their rhetoric and demands. The caravan left the West Coast in October 1972 and was joined along the way by more protestors. Upon arrival in Minneapolis, the caravan issued a series of demands known as the Twenty Points. The caravan moved on to Washington, D.C., arriving there in the final week of the 1972 presidential campaign, where many of the protestors occupied the Bureau of Indian Affairs building for six days. They asked the government to recognize the Twenty Points as the basis of any negotiation. The building was ransacked and government files stolen; the protestors claimed that government infiltrators were responsible for much of the damage. The situation was resolved peaceably by the government’s assurance that the protestors’ demands would be considered, and the protestors were granted immunity

Dennis Banks (left), an Ojibwa and national leader of the American Indian Movement (AIM), and preacher Carl McEntire during the 1972 “Trail of Broken Treaties” occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington, D.C. (Bettmann/Corbis)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973

from prosecution. However, the government subsequently rejected the demands, and this led to further violent protest (most notably the occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973). The Twenty Points proposed a new framework for considering the status of Native American tribes and the relationship between these tribes and the federal government (Deloria 1974, 48). The key demands were repeal of the 1871 law that had ended treaty making with Native American tribes, the establishment of a treaty commission to sign new treaties, Senate ratification of past unratified treaties, and passage of a law giving Indians the right to issue a declaration on treaty rights and other rights that would be binding on courts (Prucha 1994, 412–413). Other demands included restoration of a land base for Native Americans, consolidation of natural resources, and the addressing of health, housing, employment and education issues. These points were never seriously considered by the government, which declared that the 1871 law could in no way be reconsidered and that complete sovereignty for Native Americans was impossible. The Trail of Broken Treaties was part of a radical social protest movement and politics that characterized the 1960s and 1970s, although many of its demands had a profound historical basis. It was based on a common “pan-Indian” politics, and its rhetoric about treaties was based on the universal rather than particular. In making the demands general, the intent was also to “define one status for all Indian people” (Deloria 1974, 50). Treaties were seen as symbolic of the relationship between the U.S. government and Native American people, a relationship that had been betrayed over two centuries. Sovereignty and the restoration of the treaty relationship were held up by some Native American protestors as the essential step toward Native American selfdetermination and political power. As the preamble to the Twenty Points expressed it, such recognition would allow “a reconstruction of an Indian future in America.” Self-determination continued to be important to Native American political demands and was to some extent granted by the U.S. government, but not through any acknowledgment of treaty rights. The radical demands of organizations such as the American Indian Movement (AIM) and protests such as the Trail of Broken Treaties played an important role in calling public attention to the issue of treaty rights and the condition of Native American peoples. Although treaty rights were

www.abc-clio.com

701

never addressed by the U.S. government, they continue to be an issue for debate. In this, the Trail of Broken Treaties was an important and influential protest in the history of Native American treaties. Amanda Laugesen See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, Dennis; Means, Russell; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. New York: Delacorte Press. Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973 This case involved the Nisga’a of British Columbia and the Province of British Columbia and was heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. The court assessed historical and anthropological evidence regarding the Nisga’a claim to aboriginal title. The Nisga’a community on the coast of British Columbia requested a declaration that they possessed unextinguished aboriginal title and control of the Nass River Valley in northern British Columbia. The Nisga’a claim had been rejected in the lower courts, so they appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court recognized that aboriginal title exists in Canadian law, regardless of any recognition by government. However, the court split evenly on the derivation of aboriginal title and whether the Nisga’a aboriginal title had been extinguished by colonial legislation prior to British Columbia’s entry into the confederation. Justices Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, and Roland Ritchie held that the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which the Nisga’a claimed applied to the disputed territory and entitled them to protection, was not applicable to aboriginal title in British Columbia. They found that, when the Colony of British Columbia was established in 1858, the Nisga’a territory became part of it. Also, a series of proclamations delivered by Governor James Douglas between 1858 and 1863 and subsequent ordinances revealed the intention to exercise absolute sovereignty over all the lands of British Columbia. Such sovereignty

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

702

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 1973

would be inconsistent with any conflicting interest, including aboriginal title. Thus, aboriginal title, if it did exist, had been effectively extinguished by subsequent legislation. However, Justice Judson later recognized the source of aboriginal title as historical occupation of land: “[T]he fact is that when the [European] settlers came, the Indians were there, organised in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries.” This represents a significant change in judicial interpretation of the source and nature of aboriginal title in recognizing that title derives from the factual and physical occupation of lands by aboriginal peoples, prior to the arrival of Europeans, rather than from Crown grant or legislative recognition. Justices Emmett Hall, Wishart Spence, and Bora Laskin rejected the idea that, after conquest or discovery, aboriginal peoples have no rights except those granted or recognized by the conqueror or discoverer. They pointed to existing Canadian common law, which affirms aboriginal rights to possession and enjoyment of lands. Aboriginal title is not dependent on recognition by the Crown, whether by treaty, executive order, or legislation. They held that the Nisga’a title continued. Justice Hall also noted the importance of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to aboriginal peoples in Canada: “Its force as a statute is analogous to the status of the Magna Carta which has always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire.” Ultimately, the Nisga’a appeal failed on a technical legal point. The actual decision of the seventh justice, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, did not address the merits of either position of the split court but ruled simply that the Nisga’a action failed due to lack of consent of the Crown to permit an action against it. The question of the existence of Nisga’a aboriginal title was left unresolved until 1999. This is a landmark case because it recognized for the first time that aboriginal title exists under Canadian common law and does not derive from Crown grant or recognition, as previously held in St. Catherine’s Milling Co. v. The Queen (1887). Before this case, there had been limited recognition of aboriginal rights to land either under treaty or under Canadian common law. The case was also an impetus for change in federal government policy toward aboriginal title claims. After the Supreme Court’s confirmation that aboriginal title exists in Canadian law, the federal government announced it would reverse its policy of

www.abc-clio.com

refusing to enter into treaties with aboriginal groups. It was willing to assume responsibility for protection of aboriginal land interests as stated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and to commence negotiations to reconcile their interest with the Crown’s underlying title to all lands in Canada. The government introduced the comprehensive land claims process, whereby negotiation of aboriginal title claims would eventually lead to a treaty settlement. The Nisga’a claim was eventually settled under a treaty negotiation process leading to the Nisga’a Final Agreement (1999), between the Nisga’a First Nation, the Province of British, and the Government of Canada. Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999; Royal Proclamation of 1763; St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887. References and Further Reading Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia. 1973. 1 S.C.R. 313. McConnell, W. H. 1974. “The Calder Case in Historical Perspective,” 38 Saskatchewan Law Review 88.

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 1973 The premise of the case concerned whether the State of Arizona had jurisdiction to impose a personal income tax on individual members of the Navajo tribe while said individuals resided in, and whose income was exclusively derived from, the reservation. The U.S. Supreme Court relied on the test derived from Williams v. Lee (1959): whether the imposition of a state tax infringed on the tribe “to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” The Court relied on tribal treaty rights and on the historic presumption that tribes have always governed themselves on reservations. Three factors influenced the opinion of the Court. First, federal preemption had primacy over Native American inherent sovereignty; the latter was described as providing a “backdrop” to the reading of the treaties and statutes. Second, the Court invoked the canon of interpretation, according to which treaty ambiguities are resolved in favor of the tribes, and thus the Navajo treaty of 1868 was validated to preclude state taxation. Third, the Court affirmed the Navajo position following an examination of the relevant

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973

statutes, which included the Buck Act (Title 25 U.S.C. 1322 [a]) and the Arizona Enabling Act. Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Arizona did not have the jurisdiction to impose a personal income tax on income earned exclusively by a tribal member on a reservation. The case concerned an enrolled member of the Navajo tribe who lived within the Navajo reservation. In 1967, the tribal member paid $16.20 in taxes, which was withheld by his employer, and $11.84 of this was termed “tax liability.” At the end of the tax year, the tribal member filed a protest against the collection of the state tax and sought a refund. The Arizona Superior Court dismissed the action, and the Arizona court of appeals affirmed. The question decided by the U.S. Supreme Court was a narrow one and concerned whether a state may tax a reservation tribal member for income earned exclusively on the reservation. Marshall cited Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and stated that the general tenet extended to disallowing state taxation and jurisdiction within the reservation. Despite the evolution of Native American sovereignty, the tribe traditionally has retained jurisdiction over the reservation, primarily governing themselves free from state interference except at the issuance of an express act of Congress. Moreover, the Court held, Native American inherent sovereignty had been supplanted by federal preemption as a bar to state jurisdiction, and modern-day cases rely on treaties and statutes to circumscribe state authority. Marshall proceeded to examine the Navajo treaty of 1868 and the applicable statutes. The treaty of 1868 established an exclusive reservation for the Navajo Nation. Marshall stated that, although the treaty failed explicitly to mention whether the Navajo were free from state law or exempt from state tax, it was not a simple contract between two parties of equal bargaining power. Thus, the canon— according to which ambiguous expressions are construed in favor of the tribes—was invoked. The canon, the tradition of tribal independence, and the treaty that established exclusive sovereignty over reservation lands under federal supervision all preempted state law. Marshall proceeded to address the relevant statutes. First, the Arizona Enabling Act was not silent on tax immunity, but its equivocal language was interpreted in favor of the tribes. Second, the Buck Act and its legislative history also justified this position, as it and the enabling act prevaricated as to

www.abc-clio.com

703

whether or not reservation members were to be taxed. Third, Title 25 U.S.C. 1322 (a) was negated, as tribal consent was not obtained by the state. The treaty of 1868 and the sovereign history of the tribe were read in a manner where Congress would not have circumscribed Navajo jurisdiction within the reservation and on the contrary, granted the tribe tax-exempt status. Arizona’s defense relied on Williams v. Lee (1959) and intimated that taxing individuals does not impinge on tribal self-government. Marshall stated that the Williams test did not apply to these circumstances, in which a Navajo member was earning income on a reservation protected by treaty and federal statutes. Under the Williams test, if tribal government had not been infringed upon, and a tribe accepted state law concurrent within the reservation, state tax would still not bind the tribe or its members. Moreover, tax could not be imposed upon the income, the lands, or the individual members of the reservation, as federal statutes gave individual rights to tribes, which are entities composed of individuals. The Court held that Arizona had interfered with matters arising from Native American and federal government provenance. Dewi I. Ball See also Government-to-Government Relationship; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868; United States v. Kagama, 1886; Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965; Williams v. Lee, 1959; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. References and Further Reading Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 Undoubtedly, the most renowned episode in the history of Indian activism in the latter half of the twentieth century was the American Indian Movement’s takeover of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on February 27, 1973. This incident and the government’s subsequent seventy-one-day siege of the community

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

704

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973

Wounded Knee takeover by the American Indian Movement (AIM) at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota in 1973. (UPI/Bettmann/Corbis)

drew national attention—albeit briefly—to the issue of Indian sovereignty and treaty rights. Organized by American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders Russell Means and Dennis Banks (and sanctioned by traditional elders and local activists on the Pine Ridge Reservation), the occupation of the historic site was the result of mounting opposition to the reservation’s partisan tribal government. Led by Chairman Richard “Dick” Wilson, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council developed a reputation for corruption and repression in the early 1970s. Wilson’s favoritism toward his family, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) employees, and mixed-blood supporters around the town of Pine Ridge rankled the rural, traditional, full-blooded members of the tribe, who were more concerned with the maintenance of Lakota culture than with economic gain. Likewise, his outspoken animosity toward AIM was at odds with the organization’s growing influence on Pine Ridge—especially in the aftermath of the February 1972 death of Raymond Yellow Thunder at the hands of white racists in Gordon, Nebraska. AIM’s

www.abc-clio.com

swift efforts to seek justice for the Yellow Thunder family stood in stark contrast to the inactivity of the tribal council. As participants of the Trail of Broken Treaties caravan filtered back to South Dakota in late November that year, Wilson stood poised to stifle outside agitators, whom he deemed fanatical and lawless. The event that triggered the occupation of Wounded Knee occurred in the early morning hours of January 22, 1973. Darld Schmitz, a white man, stabbed to death Wesley Bad Heart Bull, a Lakota from the Pine Ridge Reservation, outside a bar in Buffalo Gap—a reservation border town approximately fifty miles south of Rapid City. Charged only with second-degree manslaughter, Schmitz was released on $5,000 bail. For many Indians, the case exemplified the discrimination they regularly faced from the state and local governments in South Dakota. In response to a request from the victim’s mother, AIM leaders Russell Means and Dennis Banks led protestors to the Custer County Courthouse on February 6, determined to reverse the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973

injustice. The demonstration turned into a riot, resulting in the arrest of nineteen Indians, including Means and Banks. Subsequent efforts by officials in nearby Rapid City to redress Indian grievances collapsed as a result of further violence. For Dick Wilson, AIM was the common denominator of the centers of violence and disruption. Determined to keep AIM and other outside agitators off his reservation, the tribal chairman, with the aid of a $62,000 grant from the BIA, organized an auxiliary police force dubbed the Goon Squad by his enemies (which his supporters turned into an acronym for Guardians of the Oglala Nation), and secured a tribal court order preventing AIM leaders from proselytizing at public events on the reservation. The Goon Squad quickly became Wilson’s private militia and served to enforce the dicta of the chairman. By mid-February, Wilson’s efforts to guarantee order on Pine Ridge were reinforced by seventy-five federal marshals from the government’s Special Operations Group. Wilson’s traditionalist opponents formed the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO) and tried unsuccessfully to impeach the chairman. Unwilling to accept the continuance of Wilson’s authoritarianism on the reservation, OSCRO leaders met with Means and Banks in the Calico Hall Community Center on February 27, 1973, to request their assistance. Chief Frank Fools Crow suggested that AIM draw attention to their plight by making a stand at Wounded Knee—a small village inhabited by fewer than a hundred people and the site of the massacre of Chief Big Foot’s band of Minneconjou Lakota by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry in 1890. To this the activists readily assented and proceeded to lead two hundred supporters in a convoy of fifty-four cars to the village that night. Arriving at 7:30 in the evening, members of AIM and their followers seized the Wounded Knee trading post, where they took its owners, the Gildersleeves, hostage and, after confiscating weapons and supplies, established a command post at nearby Sacred Heart Catholic Church, the cemetery of which contained the mass grave of the victims of the massacre of 1890. The occupiers then issued a statement declaring that they were operating under the provisions of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and were only demanding what was rightfully theirs—sovereignty. As news of the takeover at Wounded Knee spread over Pine Ridge, the BIA police, federal marshals, FBI agents, and Wilson’s Goon Squad sealed off the roads leading into the village. Within forty-

www.abc-clio.com

705

eight hours, more than two hundred law enforcement officials were on hand equipped with armored personnel carriers, automatic weapons, and .50-caliber machine guns. Helicopters and F-4 Phantom jets flew overhead, in part for reconnaissance but also for purposes of intimidation. It was soon clear, however, that unlike the circumstances almost eighty-three years earlier, there would be no attack on the inhabitants of Wounded Knee. Both sides settled down for a siege. Proclaiming an independent Oglala Nation on March 11, the occupiers of Wounded Knee busied themselves with the construction of bunkers for protection from sniper fire. Food and medical supplies slipped through the government’s permeable perimeter via supporters who, responding to the extensive media coverage of the standoff, journeyed to the reservation from around the nation. Civil rights groups, Vietnam veterans against the war, quixotic college students, and various church organizations strove to provide aid to the besieged activists. Efforts to negotiate a settlement failed repeatedly. In addition to reforming the tribal government, AIM’s demands expanded to include congressional investigations into the BIA and the Department of the Interior as well as governmental acknowledgment of treaty violations. During the first few weeks of the siege, both of South Dakota’s senators as well as negotiators from the attorney general’s office met with AIM leaders but were unsuccessful in gaining dispossession of the village. On April 5, a breakthrough in the stalemated talks appeared imminent, but a last-minute impasse again nullified all hope of an immediate resolution. Throughout the seventy-one-day siege, AIM activists and government forces continued to harass each other with sporadic sniping. On March 26, during a particularly heavy exchange of gunfire, U.S. Marshal Frank Grimm was wounded in the chest and subsequently paralyzed from the waist down. Almost a month later, on April 25, a ricocheting .50 caliber bullet hit Frank Clearwater, a Cherokee, in the head while he slept on a cot inside a church. The next day, Lawrence “Buddy” Lamont, a Lakota Vietnam veteran, died after being shot through the heart. Both fatalities, combined with other injuries and growing deprivations among the Wounded Knee occupants, led Chief Fools Crow to press AIM to intensify their efforts to bring about an end to the standoff. On May 6, Lakota elders accepted the Nixon administration’s promise to investigate Wilson’s regime on Pine Ridge, to meet

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

706

Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974

with traditionalists on the reservation to discuss the violations of the treaty of 1868, and to ensure fair handling of the Wounded Knee activists. In turn, the occupiers agreed to disarm and dispossess the village. The ten-week siege of Wounded Knee ended May 8. Few of AIM’s leaders remained in the vicinity to see its conclusion. Russell Means left on April 5 for an ultimately unproductive meeting with White House officials in Washington, D.C. He spent the remainder of the month traveling the country, lobbying for support. Dennis Banks, fearing imminent arrest, left Wounded Knee on May 7 and became a fugitive. On the day of the stand-down, 147 men and women were on hand to surrender to their besiegers. In the end, despite the national media attention and public sympathy generated by the standoff, little changed in its aftermath. Dick Wilson continued his reign as tribal chairman and spent the next two years solidifying his control of the reservation. White House officials did travel to Pine Ridge on May 17 but offered little in the way of political or economic concessions. For AIM, the siege represented the high-water mark of the organization. During the years that followed, long and costly legal battles depleted its resources while its membership succumbed to bitter factionalism. Alan C. Downs

See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, Dennis; Means, Russell. References and Further Reading Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Josephy, Alvin, Jr., ed. 1971. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight for Freedom. New York. McGrawHill. Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson, eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight for Freedom. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Means, Russell, and Marvin J. Wolf. 1995. Where White Men Fear to Tread: The Autobiography of Russell Means. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974 Better known as the Boldt Decision, United States. v. Washington marked the legal turning point in the Northwest Indian fishing rights controversy. In Phase I (1974), U.S. District Judge George Boldt decreed that the treaty tribes’ reserved right to fish “in common” entitled them to 50 percent of the harvestable salmon entering their “usual and accustomed places.” He also held that the tribes could regulate their share of the fishery, but non-Indian protests and state resistance obstructed his ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed it in 1979. In Phase II (1980), Boldt’s successor ruled that the tribes had rights to hatchery fish and to protection of the salmon from environmental degradation. Although many problems remain unresolved, the Boldt Decision set an enduring standard for allocation and helped revive the moribund tribal fishing economy in the Pacific Northwest. The case was the culmination of more than a century of conflict and litigation over off-reservation fishing rights. In 1854–1855, the Indians of Puget Sound had signed five treaties that ceded most of their aboriginal territory but explicitly reserved “the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory.” Although federal officials assumed that Indians would eventually abandon their subsistence practices and assimilate into American society, tribal representatives believed that their fishing rights had been guaranteed in perpetuity. They would not have signed the treaties without such promises, and they did not anticipate future restrictions on their rights. As anthropologist Barbara Lane later testified at trial, “the most likely Indian interpretation of the ‘in common’ language would be that non-Indians were to be allowed to fish without interfering with continued pursuit of traditional Indian fishing” (Lane 1977, 4). By the early twentieth century, however, nonIndian commercial fishing and habitat destruction had decimated salmon populations, leading Washington State to impose regulations on tribal fishing in ceded territory. State officials argued that Indians should obey the same restrictions as non-Indians, even though those rules often discriminated against Indians, violated their treaty rights, and undermined both their economic self-sufficiency and cultural traditions. Six fishing rights cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court prior to 1974. The Court upheld the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974

707

Native Americans protest violations of tribal fishing rights along the Columbia River in Washington State in 1971. (Corbis)

treaties every time, but it also refused to preclude state regulation of tribal fishing rights. Consequently, Washington State continued to harass Indian fishers despite the fact that, by the late 1960s, their share of the salmon harvest had fallen to less than 5 percent. Tribal activists such as Hank Adams, Robert Satiacum, and Billy Frank, Jr., responded with “fish-ins” to challenge state law and provoke a test case. Following a series of violent police raids that attracted national media attention, the federal government finally agreed to pursue legal action on behalf of fourteen treaty tribes. Judge Boldt hoped that United States v. Washington would settle the matter once and for all. Considering both contemporary dictionary definitions and the Indian understanding of the treaties, he construed the words “in common” to mean that the treaty tribes had a right to half of the allowable harvest. In addition, he held that the treaty tribes could regulate off-reservation fishing by their members, whereas the state could only regulate them for “reasonable and necessary” conservation purposes.

www.abc-clio.com

Although his decision built on existing precedents, it shocked many non-Indians and triggered waves of protest, including extensive outlaw fishing and numerous countersuits. Washington State also appealed and refused to enforce the ruling until the Supreme Court affirmed it in 1979. The controversy did not end there. In 1980, shortly after Boldt’s retirement, Judge William Orrick heard Phase II of the case. He ruled that the tribal share included hatchery fish and that the treaties implied the right to have salmon habitat protected from environmental threats. Two years later, however, a circuit court review overturned his opinion on the latter issue. The tribes continue to press for environmental protection, but they face strong opposition from regional politicians and business interests as well as lingering intertribal differences over allocation. Even so, the Boldt Decision helped to revitalize their fishing economies and gave them a meaningful role in the management of Northwest salmon fisheries. Andrew H. Fisher

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

708

Morton v. Mancari, 1974

See also Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968; Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon, 1969. References and Further Reading Bentley, Shannon. 1992. “Indians’ Right to Fish: The Background, Importance, and Legacy of United States v. Washington.” American Indian Law Review 17: 1–35. Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making in Western Washington.” American Indian Journal 3 (April): 2–1.

Morton v. Mancari, 1974 In deciding Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court held that that tribal Indians were “members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities” and that Indian status was thus “political rather than racial in nature” (Canby 1998, 553–554). Given that unique classification, Indian preferences in hiring and promotion at the BIA were upheld. The case arose wherein non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) brought a class action lawsuit to invalidate Indian hiring and promotion preferences at the BIA that were part of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). The IRA directed the secretary of the interior to develop standards for hiring Indians to fill positions maintained by the Indian Office, which administered tribal affairs. The IRA gave such qualified Indians preference when vacancies in the BIA were to be filled. In 1972, the policy was expanded to incorporate an Indian preference at the initial hiring stage as well as for promotions. In the subsequent lawsuit, the non-Indian BIA employees claimed that the preference was a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA) of 1972 and also constituted invidious racial discrimination in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the complaint sought to enjoin the enforcement of a federal statute as unconstitutional, a special three-judge federal district court was convened to decide the matter. After a brief trial, the district court concluded that the hiring preference for Indians was implicitly repealed by EEOA, which proscribed discrimination in most federal employ-

www.abc-clio.com

ment on the basis of race. Having made such a determination, the district court did not rule on whether the hiring preference violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court also enjoined federal officials “from implementing any policy in the Bureau of Indian Affairs which would hire, promote, or reassign any person in preference to another solely for the reason that such person is an Indian” (ibid., 540). The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that the Indian hiring preference was not repealed by the EEOA. Writing for a unanimous majority, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the Indian preference does not constitute invidious racial discrimination. In fact, the Indian preference did not constitute “racial discrimination” or even “racial” preference but was, rather, an employment criterion designed to further the cause of Indian selfgovernment and to make the BIA more responsive to the needs of its constituent groups. Furthermore, the Constitution itself explicitly and implicitly grants Congress the authority to deal with the special problems of Indians. Article I, Section 8, clause 3 gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes,” and thus “singles Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation” (ibid., 552). Justice Blackmun also noted that the federal government had had an Indian hiring preference as far back as 1834 and that, since then, Congress has repeatedly enacted additional Indian hiring preferences. According to the legislative history cited by Justice Blackmun, the purpose of these preferences “has been to give Indians a greater participation in their own self-government; to further the Government’s trust obligation toward the Indian tribes; and to reduce the negative effect of having non-Indians administer matters that affect Indian tribal life” (ibid., 542–543). Separately, Justice Blackmun pointed out that literally “every piece of legislation dealing with Indian tribes and reservations, and certainly all legislation dealing with the BIA, single out for special treatment a constituency of tribal Indians living on or near reservations” (ibid., 552). “If Indian preference laws, which were derived from historical relationships and explicitly designed to help only Indians, were deemed invidious racial discrimination, an entire Title of the United States Code (25 U. S. C.) would be effectively erased and the solemn commitment of the Government toward the Indians would be jeopardized” (ibid.).

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975

Although Morton v. Mancari involved the BIA’s hiring preference for Indians, the Court extended its holding to other areas of Indian policy as “long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians” and as long as the policy “is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government” (ibid., 555). Gavin Clarkson See also Commerce Clause and Native Americans; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Rice v. Cayetano, 2000. References and Further Reading Anderson, Terry L. 1995. Sovereign Nations or Reservations? An Economic History of American Indians. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Canby, William C., Jr. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 The American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (P.L. 93–638) was the culmination of efforts by the U.S. government to end the paternalistic relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government by directing federal funding from governmental agencies to tribal governments. Several factors contributed to the evolution of this act. As early as 1824, the U.S. government began the process of forced assimilation with the education of the American Indian in government-operated schools and the seizure of Indian land. When the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was created as a part of the War Department in 1842, it included the operation of thirty-seven Indian schools. By 1870, $100,000 was authorized to fund and operate federal schools for Indians. In 1918, the “quantum degree of Indian blood” criteria was established to determine who could attend the government-regulated Indian schools.

www.abc-clio.com

709

In 1921, Congress passed the Snyder Act, which established government services for Indian peoples through the BIA. In 1928, the Merriam Report recognized that the quality of education in reservation schools was not equivalent to the quality of education in the public school systems. The Roosevelt administration passed the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, which granted more tribal autonomy and self-reliance with less dependency on the federal government. The Johnson O’Malley Act, also passed by Congress in 1934, provided incentives for the state’s public school systems to become involved in Indian education. This law authorized the secretary of the interior to contract for Indian educational services with statesupported schools, colleges, and universities through available grants rather than building separate schools. In 1960, President John F. Kennedy hastened the effort to provide schools for all Indian children through the operation of Indian schools on reservations. Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, which serviced all the disadvantaged youth in the United States, along with an amendment to Title I that stressed the inclusion of the BIA. In addition, Titles III and IV of this act made it possible to provide more programs for Indian students. The National Indian Education Advisory Committee, established by the BIA in 1967 during the Johnson administration, facilitated the 1969 publication of Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge (also referred to as the Kennedy Report). This report recommended increased Indian control of education, a good federal school system, and the establishment of the National Indian Board of Education. Formed in 1970, the National Indian Board of Education was a combination of Indian teachers, educators, and scholars. That same year, President Richard Nixon announced a new era of Indian self-determination, that is, control over all decisions affecting Indians, including education. Tribally controlled community colleges began to form in 1971. The U.S. government strengthened its commitment to Indian self-determination with the passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972. This act enabled the U.S. Department of Education to provide direct funds for the special needs of all Indian students in public school systems that have ten or more Indian students (now known as Title IX Indian Education). The National Advisory Council on Indian Education was established to monitor the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

710

People v. LeBlanc, 1976

provisions of the law, prioritize programs, and evaluate Indian education throughout the federal system and to begin active work with the Indian community colleges. Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93–638, in 1975. This act recognized Indian tribes as sovereign nations with control over their educational programs. Educational improvements followed the implementation of this act, with additional money for Native schools, cultural programs in white public schools, incorporation of tribal cultures and Native languages into the curricula, English as a second language (ESL) instruction, and Indian parent support and involvement for students. Early childhood education initiatives were an important part of this law. Amendments to the public law have included the establishment of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, the Indian Child Welfare Act for Indian child custody cases, and the elevation of tribal governments to the same level as state governments. Helen M. Krische See also American Indian Policy Review Commission; American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian Reorganization Act, 1934. References and Further Reading Cahape, Patricia, and Craig B. Howley, eds. 1992. Indian Nations At Risk: Listening to the People. Summaries of Papers Commissioned by the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force of the U.S. Department of Education. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Appalachia Education Laboratory. Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. New York and London: W.W. Norton.

People v. LeBlanc, 1976 People v. Leblanc was a landmark case involving the fishing rights affected by the treaty of 1836. According to the treaty, the Chippewa Indians reserved the rights to fish in all waters adjoining the lands that were ceded by the treaty. However, these rights were relinquished in the treaty of 1855.

www.abc-clio.com

Those rights reserved under the treaty of 1836 were intended to be temporary. The treaty of 1855 thus provided for payments in lieu of claims for land. The intentions were that the Chippewas would not continue their traditional way of life and would assimilate into white society (7 Stat. 491 [1836], 11 Stat. 621 [1856]). Albert B. LeBlanc, a Chippewa Indian, was convicted in the 91st District Court of fishing without a commercial license and fishing with a gill net. The Chippewa circuit court affirmed. The defendant admitted the acts as charged but asserted that to convict him would conflict with a federal treaty guaranteeing to all Chippewa Indians living on the Bay Mills Indian Reservation the right to fish in the Whitefish Bay area of Lake Superior, including Pendills Bay, where he was fishing when he was arrested. The court of appeals reversed the conviction of fishing without a license and remanded the cause to the district court for a determination as to whether the statutory ban on gill nets was necessary to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply, in which case the second conviction would be affirmed. Both parties appealed. Both LeBlanc and Judge Nicholas J. Lambros of the district court ruled that the Chippewas held reserve fishing rights in Pendills Bay according to the treaty of 1836. These rights were not surrendered in the treaty of 1855, although Pendills Bay was not a part of the Bay Mills Reservation. Furthermore, the defendant was not fishing on a reservation but had off-reservation rights based on the treaty of 1836, and therefore the conviction of fishing without a commercial license was not legal. According to the court, any ambiguity in interpretation was to be decided in favor of the Chippewa. Because fishing was a lifeway of the Chippewa in the 1830s, the Chippewa had the right to fish off reservation. The Supreme Court of Michigan agreed: “Justice [James] Ryan voted to affirm the convictions because he agreed with Justice [Lawrence] Lindemer that Article Thirteenth of the Treaty of 1836 must be interpreted to mean that settlement of the land of the Upper Peninsula terminates all usual privileges of occupancy associated with the land. He agreed with Justice Mennen G. Williams the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the construction of Indian treaties required the conclusion on this record that the Treaty of 1855 did not extinguish any of the fishing rights granted the Chippewa’s in the Treaty of 1836” [55 Mich App 684; 223 NW2d 305 (1974) affirmed].

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977

In October 1974, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the defendant based on rights dealt with in the treaty of 1836. Both sides applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and this was granted. On May 7, 1979, in United States v. State of Michigan, the fishing rights of the Chippewa were recognized by the Court; proper steps were to be taken by the secretary of the interior to protect Chippewa fishing rights, thereby preempting the state’s authority to regulate fishing by tribal members (United States v. State of Michigan, 1981). In 1985, a consent agreement for managing conservation was worked out between the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Grand Traverse band of Ottawa/Chippewa Indians, and the State of Michigan. In July 2000, a Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) charter was established for conservation management and supervision of the treaty fishing rights established in 1836. On August 31, 2000, CORA established fishing regulations for the Chippewa in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan. Jean Bedell-Bailey See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983; Treaty with the Chippewa–May 9, 1836; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Chippewa–February 22, 1855; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. References and Further Reading Bressett, Walter, and Rick Whaley. 1994. Walleye Warriors: An Effective Alliance Against Racism and for the Earth. Philadelphia: New Society. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians et al., v. Lester P. Voigt et al. 1983. 700 F. 2d 365. Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions, Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 79(1).

Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977 The case concerned whether the Puyallup tribe could invoke tribal sovereign immunity against state regulatory jurisdiction over tribal fishing activity— which included limiting the number of steelhead fish caught by the tribe—on and off the reservation. The tribe intimated that limiting the number of steel-

www.abc-clio.com

711

head was an unnecessary conservation measure. Justice John Stevens delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court based its opinion on four issues. First, tribal sovereign immunity could be invoked to protect the rights of the tribe, but from the decree (opinion) of Puyallup I in 1968, the state court held jurisdiction over individual members of the tribe. Second, allotment had diminished tribal exclusivity over reservation lands granted within the Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854. Consequently, the tribe could not exclusively take steelhead passing through the reservation, and the state assumed regulatory capacity over on- and off-reservation activity, subject to conservation measures. Third, the trial court held that, pursuant to a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Puyallup II (1973), the limitation placed on the tribe regarding steelhead numbers was a reasonable conservation measure. And fourth, the tribe was advised to provide voluntarily a list of members who could fish under treaty rights and provide statistics to ensure against erroneous state regulatory enforcement. The Department of Game of Washington State filed a complaint in trial court against tribal members who claimed immunity from state conservation laws when fishing with set and drift nets for steelhead in the Puyallup River. The tribe stated that it had an exclusive right to fish in the river as a property right under the treaty of 1854 and that tribal sovereign immunity precluded state jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, pursuant to Puyallup I of 1968, individual members of the tribe who fished off reservation were held to be under state jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity did not apply. Moreover, the tribe contended, the state could not regulate tribal fishing, notwithstanding state civil and criminal jurisdiction within the reservation for most purposes. The Court ruled that, under Article 3 of the treaty of 1854, tribal members could fish “at all usual and accustomed places,” but only concomitant with “in common with all citizens of the Territory.” Treaty exclusivity was negated, and under state conservation measures, the tribal manner of fishing could be regulated as long as it did not discriminate against tribal members. Tribal sovereign immunity was applied following Puyallup II (1973) when the state court had to determine, first, the number of steelhead the tribe could catch while net fishing in the river running through the reservation; second, the identity of members permitted to fish under the treaty; and third, the weekly reporting of steelhead numbers

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

712

Longet Walk, 1978

caught by the tribe. Washington State could not impose jurisdiction over a tribe without tribal or congressional consent but could limit the number of steelhead caught by an individual tribal member. The tribe asserted, relying on the treaty of 1854 and federal preemption, that it and not the state had jurisdiction over on-reservation fishing, as previous Puyallup decisions had decided only off-reservation issues. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribal exclusivity had been extinguished pursuant to the alienation of reservation land and all land adjoining the river. Moreover, nonmembers who fished within the reservation were under state warden supervision. The issue of imposing limitations on tribal catches was introduced in Puyallup II (1973). This case directed the state court to devise limits for catching steelhead between tribal member net fishing and nonmember sport fishing. Limits had to be “fairly apportioned.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that fair apportionment could not exist if the tribe had authority to take unlimited numbers of fish within the reservation and the treaty did not allow the tribe to take every last fish. The limitation, which was necessary to determine steelhead numbers for subsequent years and to enforce laws if quotas were exceeded, was based on the numbers of steelhead caught every season and was applied to all members of the tribe. The Supreme Court stated that the tribe did not have to provide information to the state court regarding the tribal members enjoined to fish under treaty rights and the size of the catch. It was suggested that the tribe provide the necessary information voluntarily to prevent the risk of an erroneous state enforcement act. Dewi I. Ball See also Allotments; Medicine Creek, Washington; Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968; Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854; Williams v. Lee, 1959. References and Further Reading Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3rd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Longest Walk, 1978 The Longest Walk was a march organized in 1978 by American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Dennis Banks to protest congressional legislation that threatened to abrogate Indian treaty rights. The marchers left Alcatraz, California, in February and arrived in Washington, D.C., in mid-July with a contingent of more than twenty-five hundred people. In addition to protesting anti-Indian legislation, the walk was intended to commemorate the forced removal of American Indians from their homelands and to raise awareness of past and present injustices suffered by Indian people. For American Indian activists, the Longest Walk was the last in a series of protests that began with the occupation of Alcatraz Island in 1969–1971 and included the 1972 Trail of Broken Treaties, the takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee. In 1977, AIM broadened its outreach and, with its “international arm,” the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), helped bring together representatives of ninety-eight indigenous nations from across the Americas for a hearing on the rights of American Indians held before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. This event galvanized Indian activists to take action when lawmakers in Congress moved to enact legislation that threatened Indian treaty rights. Washington representative Lloyd Meeds, a member of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, was the leader of the movement to terminate Indian treaty rights and sovereignty. Meeds opposed the 1975 Indian Self-Determination Act and held that Indian people should no longer be regarded as sovereign people. In 1977 and 1978, Meeds and his fellow congressman from Washington, Jack Cunningham, introduced a series of bills that directed the president to abrogate all treaties with Indians within a year, subjected Indians to state jurisdiction, abolished tribal tax immunities, and extinguished Indian hunting and fishing rights protected by past treaties—a matter of particular importance to commercial fishing interests in the Pacific Northwest. In response to this proposed legislation, Dennis Banks (Chippewa) organized the Longest Walk. Unlike previous AIM protests, the Longest Walk was a peaceful event. On July 25, the organizers held a mass rally at the Washington Monument, during

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978

which they delivered a manifesto entitled “Affirmation of the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere.” The manifesto, which was read into the Congressional Record by California representative Ron Dellums, called for the recognition of all indigenous peoples as nations and demanded that the United States respect the treaties it had made with Indian peoples and the sovereignty of American Indian tribes. The Longest Walk, and the attention it drew to Indian issues, helped prevent passage of the legislation of Meeds and Cunningham. The movement also succeeded in raising the consciousness of Indian people and in winning public recognition of Indian peoples’ rights to self-determination. However, after the Walk the influence of AIM declined, as legal actions and FBI persecution drove many of the movement’s leaders into hiding. Anne Keary See also American Indian Movement (AIM). References and Further Reading Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Robbins, Rebecca L. 1988. “American Indian SelfDetermination: Comparative Analysis and Rhetorical Criticism,” Issues in Radical Therapy/New Studies on the Left, 13: 48–58. Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978 This Supreme Court case deviated from longstanding federal-Indian jurisprudence and opened the door for subsequent decisions to further abrogate tribal sovereignty. Well over a century and half of federal-Indian legal precedent established that tribes possess inherent, territory-based powers that are subject to divestment only by specific, unambiguous acts of Congress. In Oliphant, the Supreme Court strayed from this doctrine by declaring that

www.abc-clio.com

713

tribes do not maintain criminal authority over nonIndians because it is “in conflict with the interests of the overriding sovereignty” and is inconsistent with a tribe’s “dependent status.” The Court’s decision in Oliphant effectively turned on its head the fundamental inherent sovereignty principle of federalIndian law. The result of this decision, and of the many to follow, was the piecemeal destruction of Indian sovereignty. In Oliphant, two non-Indian residents of the Port Madison Reservation were arrested by tribal police after they crashed into a police vehicle, assaulted a tribal officer, and evaded arrest. The defendants were released and arraigned by the tribal court. Following arraignment, defendants sought a writ of habeas corpus asserting that the tribal court lacked criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. This petition was denied by the federal district court and the U.S. court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit court’s decision and held that tribal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians who commit crimes on Indian reservations. The Court determined that federal [and state] sovereignty interests outweigh Indian sovereignty interests, and that tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians was inconsistent with their “dependent status.” The Oliphant Court advanced its holding by concluding that criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians posed a fundamental conflict with individual rights guaranteed by national citizenship. In reaching this decision, the Court employed its own “implicit divestiture” stating, “While Congress never expressly forbade Indian tribes to impose criminal penalties on non-Indians, we now make express our implicit conclusion of nearly a century ago that Congress consistently believed this to be the necessary result of its repeated legislative actions.” The Oliphant decision has been highly criticized. For example, according to many, the Court disregarded well-established precedent and was curiously selective about the cases it chose, some of which had no bearing at all. Another recurring criticism is that the Court made sweeping, unsupported generalizations regarding congressional intent in the area of tribal jurisdiction over non-members and cited dubious sources for support. Oliphant marked a stark departure from the onehundred-fifty-year presumption that Indian nations possess inherent power over their territories, subject to divestment only by a specific act of Congress.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

714

United States v. Wheeler, 1978

Unlike previous Supreme Court cases, Oliphant paved the way for future courts to imply that tribal power exists only where Congress has expressly granted it. This is quite problematic for Indian nations, as it poses a direct threat to tribal governmental power. Because tribal powers had presumptively been inherent for so long, Congress had little need to expressly grant tribes the power to maintain authority over those within its borders. Therefore, areas that tribes traditionally have assumed to be clearly within their authority are now, following Oliphant and its progeny, subject to divestment by the Court. Montana v. United States provides a striking example of how Oliphant has influenced future Courts. In Montana, the Supreme Court extended its Oliphant reasoning and held that, absent a congressional statute creating a particular tribal sovereign right, Indian nations lacked regulatory authority over the conduct of nonmembers on the reservation unless one of two narrow exceptions was satisfied. Over the past twenty-five years, the Court has consistently utilized the Oliphant-Montana rule to limit significantly other forms of tribal authority over non-Indians as well. Oliphant has had profound practical effects on Indian nations, too. For one, it added to the complexity surrounding criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian reservations. Following Oliphant, states maintain criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes occurring on some reservations, the federal government has jurisdiction over others, and tribes retain authority to prosecute a limited number of crimes committed by Indians. Moreover, by not having criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, tribes have lost their ability to effectively enforce their laws, and the perception that tribal law enforcement is powerless has become all too common. Through Oliphant and its progeny, the Court has systematically dismantled tribal sovereignty. Thus, what used to be a presumptive authority, that of a sovereign over its respective nation, has now been significantly undermined, if not destroyed. Accordingly, the ability of Indian nations to be recognized as viable and legitimate entities capable of self-rule remains in a state of flux. Ryan L. Church See also Allotments; American Indian SelfDetermination and Education Act of 1975; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Domestic Dependent Nation; General Allotment Act

www.abc-clio.com

(Dawes Act), 1887; Public Law 280, 1953; Sovereignty; United States v. Wheeler, 1978. References and Further Reading Getches, David H. 1979. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

United States v. Wheeler, 1978 The premise of the case was whether the Navajo tribal court was an extension of the United States federal court and justice system. The question examined and discussed in this case was whether, under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, a tribal member could be brought before a federal court under the Major Crimes Act of 1885 following the imposition of a tribal court sentence. Three issues defined this case: first, the primary role of tribal inherent sovereignty over the imposition of federal authority in dictating tribal affairs; second, whether a treaty enabled the tribal court to assume jurisdiction and to impose a sentence that was less punitive than under United States law; and third, whether, if the tribal court was an extension of federal law, the Fifth Amendment would bar a retrial under the double jeopardy rule. Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court. The Court ruled that tribal inherent authority had precedence over a federal delegation of authority. The Navajo tribal court had jurisdiction to punish the tribal member, as the tribal court was held to be an independent forum, not one originating from the Constitution or from the U.S. justice system. Moreover, the tribe had never abandoned its authority to punish tribal members, and the double jeopardy clause did not apply, for the Navajo Nation was a separate sovereign entity. A member of the Navajo Nation was arrested on October 16, 1974, by tribal police at the Bureau of Indian Affairs High School in Many Farms, Arizona, on the Navajo Reservation. The tribal member was charged with disorderly conduct in violation of Title 17, 351 of the Navajo Tribal Code 1969 and with contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of Title 17, 321 of the Navajo Tribal Code 1969. The tribal court sentenced the tribal member to fifteen days in jail or a fine of $30 on the first charge and to sixty days in jail or a fine of $120 on the second; the jail terms were to be served concurrently. Thereafter,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 1980

on November 19, 1975, the district court for Arizona charged the tribal member with statutory rape. The tribal member filed to remove the charge, stating that the matter had been dealt with in tribal court, that the court was within the remit of federal authority, and that this barred a retrial under the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the indictment, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that a tribe’s authority to punish tribal crimes was a consequence of its inherent or retained sovereignty, not of federal delegation. Inherent sovereignty thus had not been removed by treaty or federal statute and was reconcilable with their dependent status. This affirmation came sixteen days after the ruling in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), which categorically revoked the notion of tribal inherent sovereignty. The Supreme Court ruled that the authority of the Navajo to punish its own members in tribal court was founded in treaties and in its inherent sovereignty. The Court declared that a Navajo decree in tribal court was an act of a separate and independent sovereign and not an extension of the federal justice system. Thus, the Court explicitly stated that a tribal court is wholly separate from the federal system, and opinions by separate sovereigns fail to bar federal prosecution under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ultimate source of authority to try members in tribal court is based on inherent sovereignty and not on federal power. Thus, inherent authority was not created by, and does not arise from, the Constitution of the United States; the tribes’ power is extraand pre-constitutional. Treaties prescribed that tribes retained the right to punish tribal members, and thus tribes have the right to self-government and to law enforcement through criminal procedures. Moreover, United States v. Wheeler was the first case since Talton v. Mayes (1896) to be based unequivocally on Native American inherent sovereignty. The Supreme Court further declared that Native American tribes were distinguishable from cities, states, federal territories, and nations. Dewi I. Ball See also Canyon de Chelly, Arizona; Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978; Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868; United States v. Kagama, 1886.

www.abc-clio.com

715

References and Further Reading Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 1980 This is the first case after Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) that confirms the commonlaw basis of aboriginal title in Canada. In this case, the aboriginal group sought to establish substantive land rights, including aboriginal title, through the courts by identification and confirmation of principles. The case was heard before the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division and involved the Inuit of the Baker Lake area of the Northwest Territories, the federal government of Canada, and several mining companies carrying out mining exploration activities in the area. The Inuit asserted an existing aboriginal title over an undefined area of the Northwest Territories of Canada, including approximately seventy-eight thousand square kilometers around the community of Baker Lake. Although the government conceded that the Inuit had occupied and used the area since time immemorial, the mining companies disputed the existence of aboriginal title in the contemporary Inuit community or in their ancestors. Both Canada and the mining companies argued that, even if aboriginal title did exist, it had been extinguished either by the Royal Charter of 1670, which granted Rupert’s Land to the Hudson’s Bay Company, or by subsequent legislation incorporating Rupert’s Land into Canada. The Inuit argued that the mining activities were “unlawful invasions” of their rights under Inuit aboriginal title and, in particular, that their right to hunt caribou had been gravely impaired. Justice Patrick Mahoney held that the Inuit had an occupancy-based aboriginal title to the Baker Lake area and that it was recognized by the common law, subject to legitimate legislative infringements.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

716

Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980

He outlined certain elements necessary for the establishment of aboriginal title before the courts: (1) organized society: aboriginal claimants and their ancestors must show that they were members of an organized society; (2) specific territory: the organized society must have occupied the specific territory over which aboriginal title is claimed; (3) exclusivity: the occupation of the specific territory must have been to the exclusion of other organized societies; and (4) factual occupation: the occupation of the specific territory must have been an established fact at the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over Canada. The Baker Lake community met all these requirements, and the court confirmed the existence of their aboriginal title. Justice Mahoney concluded, “The fact is that the aboriginal Inuit had an organized society. It was not a society with very elaborate institutions but it was a society organized to exploit the resources available on the barrens [lands west of Hudson Bay] and essential to sustain human life there. That was about all they could do: hunt and fish as their ancestors did.” He continued, “[A]t the time England asserted sovereignty over the barren lands west of Hudson Bay, the Inuit were the exclusive occupants of the portion of barren lands extending from the vicinity of Baker Lake north and east toward the Artic and Hudson Bay to the boundaries of the Baker Lake R.C.M.P. detachment area . . . An aboriginal title to that territory, carrying with it the right freely to move about and hunt and fish over it, vested at common law in the Inuit.” The only question that remained was whether aboriginal title had been extinguished, either by the transfer of the lands to the Hudson’s Bay Company or by the subsequent admission of Rupert’s Land into Canada. Justice Mahoney held that neither had had the effect of extinguishing the Inuit’s aboriginal title, because the Crown had not shown clear and plain intention to extinguish aboriginal rights. He explained that, “the extinguishment of their aboriginal title was plainly not in Parliament’s mind in 1950. The barren lands were not, for obvious reasons, being opened for settlement and so there was no reason to extinguish the aboriginal title . . . Extinguishment of the Inuit’s aboriginal title is not a necessary result of legislation enacted since 1870. The aboriginal title in issue has not been extinguished.” The decision was not appealed. Some of the Baker Lake requirements were modified after Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997). For example, the exclusivity principle is no longer

www.abc-clio.com

so strict. More than one aboriginal group may occupy the same territory, in which case they may be able to establish shared exclusive occupancy, allowing joint title to the land to the exclusion of all other groups. Although compensation was not sought by the Inuit in this case, Justice Mahoney did indicate that aboriginal peoples may be entitled to compensation where mining laws, used to grant private companies permits to undertake exploration activities on aboriginal lands, diminish aboriginal rights. This was also an indication of how aboriginal title and aboriginal rights may coexist with settlement or development by nonaboriginal peoples. Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Canada; Canadian Indian Treaties; Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997; Inuit. References and Further Reading Asch, Mark, ed. 1997. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality and Respect for Difference. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Borrows, J. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,” 22 American Indian Law Review 37. Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. 1980. 1 F.C. 518.

Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (MICSA), signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 10, 1980, was the largest Indian claim and the first to include provisions for land reacquisition. Proclaimed by many at the time as a success story for the Wabanaki peoples of Maine, this controversial settlement has ignited debates about tribal sovereignty versus state jurisdiction in land use, tribal courts, environmental protection and enforcement, and educational funding. Wabanaki is an allinclusive term that refers to the easternmost confederation of tribes, which consists of the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Mi’kmaq. Although MICSA recognized aboriginal claim to 60 percent of Maine, or 12.5 million acres with 350,000 people, it extinguished aboriginal title to that land and compensated the Passamaquoddy tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and the Houlton band of Maliseet with $81.5

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980

717

President Jimmy Carter signs the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, using an eagle feather from the Penobscot Nation as Maine state officials and members of the nation look on. (Steve Cartwright/Wabanaki Alliance)

million (American Friends Service Committee [AFSC] 1989, D-98–D-102). Although tribal land claims in Maine surfaced in the 1940s, the settlement originated in 1957, when Passamaquoddy leader John Stevens discovered a copy of the tribe’s 1794 treaty with Massachusetts that clearly defined reservation lands, including the twenty-three-thousand-acre Indian Township, the largest reservation in New England. In 1964, when William Plaisted, a non-Indian Princeton resident, added to his previously acquired reservation land from a poker game and began to build summer cabins, tribal members from Indian Township staged a peaceful sit-in to halt construction efforts. This incident raised awareness of more than six thousand acres of Indian land that were alienated from tribal ownership. In 1968, the tribe filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts asking $150 million in damages. After several delays, the Passamaquoddy tribe filed suit in federal district court against the U.S. Department of the Interior. In Passamaquoddy v. Morton (1975), the court recognized that the Passamaquoddy tribe and

www.abc-clio.com

the Penobscot Nation had title to federal services provided to other Indian tribes and that Maine possessed no authority to interfere with tribal government (Brodeur 1985, 69–141; Ghere 1984, 249). Attorney Thomas N. Tureen argued that the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, which stipulated that Congress must approve the purchase of Indian land, applied to Maine and that, therefore, several treaties between Wabanaki people and Massachusetts and Maine were invalid (Brodeur 1985, 82; O’Toole & Tureen 1971, 1–39; for treaties, see Deloria & DeMallie 1999, 1094–1095). During the settlement negotiation, Wabanaki peoples experienced a harsh backlash from Maine citizens. After years of negotiation, the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, which was settled outside of court, acknowledged that the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 applied to Maine and that almost two-thirds of the state was Indian land. From the $81.5 million compensated to the tribes, $54.5 million, of which the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy each received $26.8 million, permitted each of the two tribes to purchase

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

718

Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980

one hundred fifty-thousand acres of unorganized territory in Maine, to be held in trust with the federal government. A trust fund of the remaining $27 million was divided between the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy, and each tribe would invest $1 million for their elders. After MICSA’s passage, the two tribes chose different ways to utilize the settlement funds. Whereas the Passamaquoddy turned their attention to economic development, the Penobscot focused on land acquisition (AFSC 1989, B-142–B-160, D-101–D-102; U.S. Congress 1980). The Association of Aroostook Indians achieved the inclusion of the Houlton band of Maliseet in MICSA. During the claims negotiation in 1979, the Maliseet, whose homeland encompasses the valley of the Saint John River and its tributaries, protested that the Penobscot claims overlapped with their family hunting territory near Houlton, Maine. MICSA provided $900,000 to finance the purchase of a fivethousand-acre reservation but did not include trust money for the Maliseet (U.S. Congress 1980; Wherry 1981, 10–11). MICSA excluded the Mi’kmaq of Maine, who later received federal recognition by the 1991 Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. It established the same compensation for the Maliseet in MICSA and provided a $50,000 property fund (Prins 1996, 7–17, 213–214). Although the tribes as a whole maintain mixed feelings about what MICSA has brought to them, individual family members tend to make decisions based first and foremost on the needs of their families. Per capita payments distributed to tribal members were thought to be a forced acceptance of the agreement. Therefore, some tribal opponents of the settlement refused to accept the payments. Critics of the settlement felt that it did not respect Wabanaki tribes as sovereign people and reduced reservations’ status to that of municipalities. MICSA’s language is subject to interpretation, and the act’s ambiguity on several key points seems to have obscured the settlement’s meaning for some tribal voters. Other tribal people viewed the act as a step toward selfdetermination and believe that the settlement’s outcome was unforeseeable. MICSA created the Maine Implementing Act (MIA), enacted by the Maine legislature, to define the tribal-state relationship by establishing specific laws concerning Wabanaki peoples and Indian land. The MIA formed the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission (MITSC) to serve as a mediator between Wabanaki communities and Maine. Composed of

www.abc-clio.com

state officials, tribal leaders, and appointed members, MITSC strives to cultivate a tribal-state relationship “based on open communications and mutual respect” (MITSC 1997, 13–15). Tribal governments do not interpret MICSA as a limitation of sovereign rights. Although some tribal people have expressed concern over the commission, MITSC continues the legacy of the Wabanaki peoples’ unique relationship with Maine. Micah Pawling and John Bear Mitchell

ABC-CLIO

See also Aboriginal Title; Government-toGovernment Relationship; Nonrecognized Tribes; Sovereignty; Trust Land. References and Further Reading American Friends Service Committee. 1989. The Wabanakis of Maine and the Maritimes: A Resource Book about Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, Micmacs, and Abenaki Indians. Bath, ME: Maine Indian Program. Brodeur, Paul. 1985. Restitution: The Land Claims of the Mashpee, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot Indians of New England. With afterword by Thomas N. Tureen. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie, ed. 1999. “Treaty Between the Penobscot and Massachusetts, August 8, 1796.” Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 2, 1094–1095. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ghere, David L. 1984. “Assimilation, Termination, or Tribal Rejuvenation: Maine Indian Affairs in the 1950s.” Maine Historical Society Quarterly, 24(2): 239–264. Maine Indian Claims Settlement. 1979. Title 30, Chapter 601. Accessed July 11, 2007, at http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/30/title 30ch601.pdf. Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. January 17, 1997. “At Loggerheads: The State of Maine and the Wabanaki.” Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. Accessed July 11, 2007, at http://www.mitsc.org. O’Toole, Francis J., and Thomas N. Tureen. 1971. “State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe: A Gross National Hypocrisy?” Maine Law Review 23(1): 1–39. Prins, Harald E. L. 1996. The Mi’kmaq: Resistance, Accommodation, and Cultural Survival. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. U.S. Congress. 1980. “Maine Indian Claims Settlement and Land Acquisition Funds in the U.S. Treasury.” US Code, Title 25, Chapter 19, Subchapter II, 1724. Accessed July 11, 2007, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ uscode25/usc_sec_25_00001724——000-.html.

1-800-368-6868

United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980

United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980 Although for Indians it was a legal victory that upheld compensable property interests, the Sioux Nation case may be considered a Pyrrhic victory at best. At issue in the case was the Native American claim to the Black Hills of South Dakota and the uncompensated confiscation of the Black Hills by the U.S. government. The legal basis for the claim rested in a 112-year-old treaty. The Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868 was concluded at the culmination of the Powder River Wars, a series of military engagements between the U.S. Army and various Sioux tribes led by Red Cloud. Article 2 of the treaty established the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, for exclusive occupation and use by the Indians. And Article 12 mandated that no subsequent treaty could cede any of the land reserved unless it was approved by threefourths of all the adult Sioux males occupying the land. However, gold was discovered in the Black Hills six years later, and pressure became intense to open the areas reserved for the Sioux to exploration and mining. Frustrated by the refusal of the Sioux to accept the government’s offer of $6 million or an annual rental of $400,000 for the Black Hills, the secretary of the interior classified those who had temporarily left the reservation to hunt as “hostile” and turned management of the Sioux over to the War Department. The army’s campaign against the Indians culminated in the slaughter of General Custer’s 7th Cavalry detachment at Little Big Horn by Sitting Bull’s warriors, which in turn led to inevitable victory by the army and return to the reservation by the Sioux. In August 1876, Congress attempted to force the issue by enacting an appropriations measure withholding subsistence funds to the Sioux, who were by that time dependent on the government, unless they ceded the Black Hills. A federal commissioner was dispatched to secure this trade, and another treaty was presented to the Sioux and signed by 10 percent of the adult males—far short of the three-fourths required by Article 12 of the Fort Laramie treaty. Nevertheless, Congress passed the 1877 act implementing the new agreement, thereby legitimizing settlement of the Black Hills by non-Indians. Before the 1980 Supreme Court case, the Sioux Nation sought twice to secure compensation for

www.abc-clio.com

719

Congress’s taking of the Black Hills. In 1920, a special jurisdictional act allowed the Sioux to take their case to the court of claims; however, that case was dismissed in 1942 as representing merely an uncompensable moral, rather than legal, claim. Four years later, upon establishment of the Indian Claims Commission, the Sioux brought their case again, and the commission found that the 1877 act had constituted a taking of property that required compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The commission ruled that the Indians were entitled to $17.5 million for the land and gold taken. But the court of claims overturned this ruling on appeal, holding that the case had been decided in 1942 and could not be brought again. In 1978, Congress enacted a law removing the res judicata bar—allowing the Sioux’s case to move forward. Subsequently, the court of claims agreed with the commission’s finding and determined that the tribe was entitled to the principle sum with 5 percent annual interest, to be calculated from 1877. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, agreed in its 1980 review of the case, holding the government’s good-faith defense when dealing with the Indians insufficient to bar an inquiry into the factual circumstances surrounding the taking of Indian lands. In a vigorous dissent, Justice William Rehnquist emphasized the culpability of the Sioux, which he said received scant attention in the majority’s factual inquiry and which had been equal to that of the government in the 1870s. Quoting white settlers’ accounts of Indian savagery against them in the Black Hills, Rehnquist also warned against judging past events by the light of current revisionist historians. Although the Supreme Court’s Sioux Nation decision found a compensable taking for land confiscated subject to recognized Indian title, the ruling in the Tee-Hit-Ton case, which found no compensable taking for land confiscated subject to unrecognized aboriginal title, still stands. Although the Sioux Nation case accords the tribe a legal right to compensation for the Black Hills, the Sioux have consistently refused to accept their money—holding out their wish to get the land back instead. Thus, the Black Hills claim remains unresolved. Michael J. Kelly See also Fort Laramie, Wyoming; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903; Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta);

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

720

Constitution Act (Canada), 1982

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955; Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho–May 10, 1868. References and Further Reading LaVelle, John P. 2001. “Rescuing Paha Sapa: Achieving Environmental Justice by Restoring the Great Grasslands and Returning the Sacred Black Hills to the Great Sioux Nation.” Great Plains Natural Resources Journal 5: 40–101. New Holy, Alexandra. 1998. “The Heart of Everything That Is: Paha Sapa, Treaties, and Lakota Identity.” Oklahoma City University Law Review 23: 317–352. Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. Lazarus, Edward. 1991. Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 to the Present. HarperCollins. United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).

Constitution Act (Canada), 1982 Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain in 1931, but it was not a truly independent country before 1982, when Canada “repatriated” its constitution from Great Britain. Before 1982, the Canadian constitution was a British statute and subservient to the British Parliament. The Constitution of 1982 contained, for the first time, a Charter of Rights (similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights) and a recognition of the rights of aboriginal people. Section 35, paragraph 1 of the Constitution states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” The second paragraph defines aboriginal as including “Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada.” In Canada, Indian people are usually referred to as First Nations people. Also, the term Eskimo is no longer an acceptable characterization of the indigenous peoples of the Far North, who prefer to be referred to as the Inuit. The Métis are the third group of aboriginal people recognized by the Canadian constitution; loosely translated, métis means simply “mixed-blood” and is used to designate the descendants of intermarried indigenous and European peoples, but only if those peoples can demonstrate that theirs is a culture that is distinct from that of mainstream Canada.

www.abc-clio.com

There was some debate in Canada over the characterization of the Métis as aboriginal people, which was most often used to describe the people indigenous to the continent before European contact. The Canadian Supreme Court answered this question in 2003 when it ruled in favor of two Métis men from Sault Ste. Marie, Steve and Roddy Powley (father and son) who were arrested for killing a moose “out of season.” The Powleys claimed an aboriginal right under the constitution to hunt for subsistence; the Court upheld that right but ruled that it applied only to the Métis in the Sault Ste. Marie area. Other Métis groups would have to seek to define their own set of “aboriginal rights” in the courts. Others have been doing exactly that. In a very important case for aboriginal peoples in the Maritimes, the Canadian Supreme Court recognized an aboriginal right to access the area’s natural resources to “secure a moderate living.” The case centered around Donald Marshall, a Mi’kmaq, who was arrested for catching eels “out of season” and without a license. Marshall claimed that a 1760 treaty with the British granted him such a right and that the constitution guaranteed that right. In a 1999 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court agreed. The Marshall case, as it has come to be known, set the stage for another constitutional challenge when Joshua Bernard, another Mi’kmaq man, was arrested for harvesting logs from Crown land in New Brunswick. Although his rights have been upheld in New Brunswick’s highest court, the province appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled in July 2005, that commercial logging could not be seen as an extension of the trading in which aboriginal people engaged before European contact, a right that was upheld in the Marshall case. The Bernard case, while standing somewhat in contradiction to Marshall (as they both claimed rights under the same treaty of 1760), reflects an earlier (2001) case in which the Canadian Supreme Court also failed to recognize aboriginal rights that were upheld in the lower courts. In this earlier “precontact trade case,” the Court denied Chief Mike Mitchell and other Mohawks of the Akwesasne Reserve—which straddles the U.S.-Canada border where New York, Ontario, and Quebec meet—a claimed aboriginal right to bring personal goods into Canada without paying a duty for those goods. In the Mitchell case, the claim of an aboriginal right to “import” (for trade and personal use) goods duty-free was upheld by the lower courts, but the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983

Canadian Supreme Court, while agreeing that the Mohawks had this specific aboriginal right, determined that the granting of duty-free importation of goods to the Mohawks of Akwesasne would abrogate the sovereign right of the Canadian government to impose duties on imported goods. This was something the Court could not do, regardless of the validity of the “recognized and affirmed” rights of the Mohawks. According to some analysts, the Mitchell and Bernard cases “recognize and affirm” only those aboriginal rights that can be shown to be subservient to the rights that the Canadian government has derogated unto itself, making a mockery of those rights that the indigenous people freely exercised before the arrival of Europeans, rights seemingly guaranteed to them in Section 35 (1) of the Canadian constitution. Phil Bellfy See also Métis; Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Morse, Bradford, ed. 1985. Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: Indian, Métis and Inuit Rights in Canada. Ottawa: Carleton University Press; Don Mills, ON: distributed by Oxford University Press.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al. is a landmark 1983 federal appeals court decision that affirmed the treaty rights of six bands of Wisconsin Chippewa (hereafter Wisconsin Ojibwe) to hunt, fish, and gather on off-reservation public lands in the territories they ceded to the United States in the treaties of 1837 and 1842. Often referred to as the Voigt Decision, this legal controversy between the state of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles, and five other Wisconsin Ojibwe bands began in 1974, when two brothers from the Lac Courte Oreille Ojibwe band were arrested by the Wisconsin Department of

www.abc-clio.com

721

Natural Resources for illegally fishing outside the borders of their northern Wisconsin reservation. The two brothers, Fred and Mike Tribble, deliberately challenged the state’s authority to regulate their offreservation hunting and fishing. In 1978, a federal district court found that the tribe had relinquished its off-reservation treaty rights when it accepted a reservation in the treaty of 1854 with the United States. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that, when the Ojibwe negotiated treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1842, they understood that their off-reservation usufructuary rights would be relinquished only if they harassed nonIndian settlers. The court found no evidence that the Ojibwe had not lived up to their side of the treaty bargain. The judges determined that the tribe’s treaty rights had not been extinguished by the treaty of 1854 between the Ojibwe and the United States or by a presidential removal order of 1850. The court ruled that the removal order, which required the Ojibwe to vacate their Wisconsin homelands, was illegal and that there had been no explicit language in the treaty of 1854 terminating the tribe’s treaty rights. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Wisconsin’s appeal of this decision. Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the state’s appeal, the appellate court ordered the district court to define the nature of the treaty right and the ability of the state to regulate the exercise of the treaty right. From 1984 to 1991, the district court issued a series of decisions on the nature of the treaty right. Based on an examination of the historical record, the court ruled that the Ojibwe could harvest a large variety of plants and animals on public lands in the ceded territory, using any methods and technologies available at the time of the treaties or developed since that time. The treaty harvest could be used for subsistence, or the harvest could be traded and sold to non-Indians. The court ruled that, if the Ojibwe enacted their own hunting, fishing, and gathering rules in accordance with court decisions, then the state could not regulate Ojibwe hunters and fishers off reservation. In accordance with this ruling, the Ojibwe established a natural resource organization called the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Other district court decisions determined the harvest levels of fish and white-tailed deer on lakes and public lands of the ceded territory. The court ruled that the treaty right did not involve a right to harvest commercial timber and that sovereign immunity protected the state from Ojibwe claims for millions of dollars

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

722

United States v. Dion, 1986

compensation for the loss of their treaty rights from the 1880s until 1983. In reaction to the Voigt Decision and the Ojibwe exercise of their off-reservation treaty rights, anti-Indian treaty rights groups emerged in northern Wisconsin during the 1980s. Groups such as Equal Rights for Everyone, Protect American’s Right and Resources, and Stop Treaty Abuse organized large, sometimes violent protests at the offreservation boat landings where Ojibwe spearfishers launched their boats during their spring spearfishing season. The organized protests ended in the early 1990s, and today the Ojibwe exercise their treaty rights in a relatively quiet and routine manner. In the spring of 2003, the Wisconsin Ojibwe spear-fished 27,522 walleye from 175 ceded territory lakes. They also speared 220 muskellunge. In 2002, they harvested 1,019 white-tailed deer. In addition to their harvest of game fish and deer, the Ojibwe harvest bear, fur-bearing animals, waterfowl, turkey, various wild plants, maple syrup, firewood, and balsam. Steven E. Silvern See also Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission; Reserved Rights Doctrine. References and Further Reading Bressett, Walter, and Rick Whaley. 1994. Walleye Warriors: An Effective Alliance Against Racism and for the Earth. Philadephia: New Society. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. Lester P. Voigt et al. 1983. 700 F. 2d 365. Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions, Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 79(1). Silvern, Steven. 1999. “Scales of Justice: Law, American Indian Treaty Rights, and the Political Construction of Scale.” Political Geography 18(6): 639–668.

United States v. Dion, 1986 The 1986 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Dion stands for the proposition that American Indians may continue to rely on rights secured to them in treaties with the United States, even if those rights were secured two hundred years ago, unless there is clear evidence that Congress actually considered the right implicated in the treaty and affirmatively chose to abrogate that portion of the treaty with a later statute.

www.abc-clio.com

The defendant in this case, a member of the Yankton Sioux tribe, was convicted for shooting four bald eagles on the reservation, in violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Eagle Protection Act. The defendant relied on a treaty in 1858 between the Yankton Sioux and the United States which ceded all but four hundred thousand acres of land to the United States and removed the Yankton to a reservation in exchange for the federal government’s guarantee of the Indians’ continued quiet and undisturbed possession of their reserved land and an annual stipend. No restriction was placed on hunting rights of the Yankton Indians, and all parties to the litigation agreed that the treaty vested an exclusive right in them to hunt and fish on their land. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority, did not accept the view that prior treaty rights were impervious to later statutory abrogation. After noting that statutes and treaties are coequal articulations of federal law under Article VI of the Constitution and that, in general, the later in time controls, Justice Marshall explained that, in special regard to Indian treaties (as opposed to foreign treaties), a higher standard of subsequent statutory abrogation is required. Specifically, Congress’s intent to abrogate Indian treaty rights must be clear and plain, although it need not be expressly stated in the statutory language itself. “What is essential is clear evidence that Congress actually considered the conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” (U.S. v. Dion 1986). The Eagle Protection Act of 1962 establishes a blanket prohibition on killing bald eagles, making such action a federal crime. However, the act also contains an elaborate permitting scheme, whereby American Indians can apply to the Department of the Interior for a permit to take bald eagles for religious purposes. The secretary of the interior may issue such permits on a discretionary basis. Absent such a permit, the taking of a protected eagle by an American Indian, even for an ostensibly religious purpose, remains illegal. The Court found that the existence of this permitting scheme in the act was itself clear evidence that Congress believed that it was abrogating Indian treaty rights to take eagles and that the scheme was designed to solve the problem of the act’s application to Indians. The Court also decided that, because the Endangered Species Act of 1972 was silent

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988

regarding Indian hunting rights but prohibited exactly the same conduct for the same reasons, it did not need to be analyzed but in fact worked together with the Eagle Protection Act to abrogate the earlier Indian treaty rights to take bald eagles. Thus, the Court concluded, “Dion here asserts a treaty right to engage in precisely the conduct that Congress, overriding Indian treaty rights, made criminal in the Eagle Protection Act. Dion’s treaty shield for that conduct, we hold, was removed by that statute, and Congress’ failure to discuss that shield in the context of the Endangered Species Act did not revive that treaty right” (U.S. v. Dion 1986). Seven years later, in United States v. Bourland, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, used the standard in Dion to conclude that Congress had abrogated the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe’s original treaty rights to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on Indian land when those lands were essentially taken for a federal water project under the Flood Control Act—which provided for general recreational use of the water bodies by the public. Justice Thomas’s reasoning was that hunting and fishing were recreational uses and, therefore, Congress intended non-Indians to avail themselves of that use equally with Indians. Justices Harry Blackmun and David Souter vigorously dissented, accusing the majority of misapplying the Dion standard and pointing to a clear lack of evidence that Congress had considered the conflicting treaty rights and decided to abrogate them. Consequently, although the correct interpretation of the Dion standard remains in doubt (narrow or broad), judges continue to find the basic premise of its test useful. Michael J. Kelly See also Plenary Power; Treaty. References and Further Reading Diekemper, Tracy A. 1995. “Abrogating Treaty Rights Under the Dion Test: Upholding Traditional Notions that Indian Treaties Are the Supreme Law of the Land.” University of Oregon Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 10: 473–497. South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986).

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988 In October 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into a law the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

www.abc-clio.com

723

(IGRA). Although many observers believe that IGRA granted Native nations new rights and unfair advantages, in fact the act constrained their sovereignty as it introduced novel regulatory schemes. The legislation responded to the Cabazon decision, which allowed tribes to operate card games, and it became the foundation of IGRA. Gambling has ancient roots in Native America, serving important economic, social, and recreational functions in many communities. During the more than five hundred years in which Native Americans have interacted first with Europeans and later with European Americans, non-Native religious and political leaders have looked down upon indigenous games of chance. Gradually, in response to dwindling federal funding during the second half of the twentieth century, some American Indian tribes began to conceive of gambling as a means of economic development and social survival. They turned first to such games as bingo and later experimented with cards, lotteries, and parimutuel. Although these developments were smallscale and varied among tribes, they often conflicted with state laws and put Native American operations into competition with an increasingly lucrative gaming industry. Consequently, attorneys general and legislators worked to curtail Indian operations, despite the fact that such efforts ran contrary to established roles and relationships between states and tribes. Court decisions in the late 1970s and early 1980s did little to ease the rising tensions, affirming the capacity of tribes to establish gaming while prompting states to seek more favorable federal intervention. In the early 1980s, Congress began to formulate a legislative compromise, emphasizing initially the control of tribal operations. After years of debate and lobbying, IGRA was passed, which displeased states, tribes, and the gaming industry precisely because it sought to balance competing interests. IGRA envisioned gambling as a promising opportunity that would at once encourage “economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government.” The act endeavored to make tribal communities the primary beneficiaries of gambling enterprises. It instructed that revenues be spent on public services, charitable endeavors, or per capita distributions. The act also contained provisions to protect tribal gaming from organized crime. It created the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to oversee the implementation of its intricate rules and ambitious objectives.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

724

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988

Casino advertising on the Morongo Indian Reservation, near Cabazon, California. In 1987, California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians led to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (Bob Rowan; Progressive Image/Corbis)

IGRA outlined three types of gambling that required distinct forms of regulation. Class I games, or traditional games played in association with social and ceremonial occasions for prizes of limited value, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal governments. Class II games included bingo, lotto, and related games of chance and were controlled by the tribes and the NIGC. Class III gaming, or casino gaming, included slot machines and table games and were subject to joint tribal and state regulation, provided that a tribal government could negotiate a compact with a state government granting them permission for such operations. If states balked, tribes could sue them in federal court, compelling them to participate in negotiations in good faith or submit to mediation. The compromises central to IGRA, particularly its efforts to balance states’ rights and sovereignty, diminished the capacity of tribal government to exercise self-rule. In fact, in many ways IGRA asserts that indigenous claims to dominion and selfdetermination were less significant than the claims

www.abc-clio.com

advanced by individual states. Furthermore, it affirmed a long paternalist tradition that renders tribes dependents and wards of the state rather than independent, equal, and empowered nations. In the wake of IGRA, gambling has become an increasingly powerful force in Indian country and American culture. It has fostered the establishment of numerous gaming operations, encouraging economic development and cultural preservation. It has also exacerbated social problems while contributing to anti-Indian sentiments. Moreover, IGRA has diminished tribal sovereignty. On the one hand, the act has furthered popular resentment toward and misunderstandings of sovereignty, in which the act is seen as an entitlement that gives Native Americans unfair advantages and inappropriate rights not available to all Americans. On the other hand, judicial decisions have undermined the tribal rights even more. In 1996, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, ruled that tribes could not sue states in court, limiting the capacity of tribes to compel states to open compact negotiations to appeals to the secre-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990

tary of the interior, while granting states the ability to override tribal decisions and desires. In a very real sense, IGRA typifies recent policy shifts that both affirm the reality of sovereignty but work to limit it. C. Richard King See also Sovereignty; Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Responsibility. References and Further Reading Eadington, William R., ed. Indian Gaming and the Law. Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming. Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990 Thousands of American Indian human remains and funerary objects passed into the collections of nonIndian museums and federal agencies during the course of America’s westward expansion. Much of that assemblage occurred pursuant to looting and grave desecration. Native Americans, in general, accord great spiritual significance to the bones of their ancestors; consequently, efforts were made during the height of the Indian rights movement in the 1980s to reclaim this lost heritage. The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) was the culmination of the Phoenix Dialogue, a series of discussions among Native Americans, museum officials, anthropologists, antiquities dealers, and government agencies that sought to restore American Indian skeletons and burial objects to their respective tribes for reinternment. NAGPRA, therefore, mandates return of these items to culturally affiliated tribes, whether the items exist in federally funded museums or government agencies or are newly discovered on federal or tribal land. Museums and agencies are tasked with cataloging, identifying, and then repatriating the human remains and funeral objects in their holdings. Moreover, remains and objects newly uncovered—for instance, due to new construction or inadvertent discovery—must be identified and repatriated as well.

www.abc-clio.com

725

Penalties for noncompliance are severe. Those who knowingly traffic (sell, purchase, use for profit, or transport for sale or profit) in Indian human remains or cultural items can be fined and imprisoned for up to a year. Subsequent violations carry prison terms up to five years. The penal provisions of NAGPRA have been upheld against individual traders by federal courts. Until 1996, NAGPRA encountered very little resistance from the scientific community in either its terms or application. Most human remains and burial items were only a couple of centuries old, were easily traceable to living lineal descendants as grandparents or great grandparents or their personal items, and could be returned and reburied in a respectful manner. However, a discovery in that year on the banks of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, changed this dynamic. A skeleton recovered there by local anthropologist Jim Chatters was first analyzed under direction of the county medical examiner according to the assumption that it was a one-hundred-and-fifty-yearold white pioneer—due to the skull’s distinctive Caucasoid, rather than Native American, physical traits. Then, Chatters found a stone spear point embedded in the pelvis. This raised the issue of age. Carbon dating determined that Kennewick Man, as he came to be known, was actually 9,300 years old. Consequently, the new question became, What was a person with Caucasoid physical traits doing in that part of North America almost ten thousand years ago? The scientific community very much wanted this question answered. However, the Native American community did not, and they had NAGPRA on their side. Because Kennewick Man was discovered on aboriginally occupied land (areas historically occupied by Indians), a coalition of local tribes led by the Umatilla Indians were able to lay claim to the bones under NAGPRA. The federal government, which had custody of the skeleton because it was found in a navigable waterway, complied and agreed to turn over the remains for reburial. Acting quickly to forestall this loss to science, a group of eight anthropologists filed suit in Oregon’s federal district court to enjoin the government’s handover. After six years of legal wrangling, the judge overturned an administrative decision by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt affirming the earlier agency decision to repatriate the bones based on the oral history of the local tribes—that they had occupied that land forever, and therefore this must be one

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

726

Self-Government Agreements (Canada)

of their ancestors, regardless of his physical characteristics. The judge’s decision allowing the scientists to study the remains before repatriation, however, was stayed pending appeal of the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That case is unresolved as of this writing, and the status of Kennewick Man remains in limbo. For American Indians, the spiritual importance of returning their ancestors to the ground, no matter how far removed, cannot be overstated. Neither can one casually undermine science’s ability to use such remains to unlock ancient mysteries of the peopling of North America. NAGPRA fails to resolve this inherent conflict in its application to ancient remains, and it offers little concrete guidance to federal judges whose task it is to arrive at a just solution. Nevertheless, NAGPRA continues to be regarded as successful when applied to relatively recent human remains and funeral objects. Michael J. Kelly See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Federally Recognized Tribes; Indian Country; Supremacy Clause. References and Further Reading Bonnichsen v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (Dist. Ct. Or. 2002). Kelly, Michael J. 1999. “A Skeleton in the Legal Closet: The Discovery of ‘Kennewick Man’ Crystalizes the Debate over Federal Law Governing Disposal of Ancient Human Remains.” University of Hawaii Law Review 21: 41–67. Ragsdale, John W. 2001. “Some Philosophical, Political and Legal Implications of American Archeological and Anthropological Theory.” UMKC Law Review 70: 1–53. United States v. Corrow, 941 F. Supp. 1553 (Dist. Ct. N.M. 1996). United States v. Kramer, 168 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 1999).

Self-Government Agreements (Canada) Beginning in 1993, the government of Canada negotiated and established for the first time constitutionally protected self-government treaties with several of Canada’s First Nations, treaties that affirmed the right of these aboriginal groups to govern themselves and restored to them the power to pass laws and make decisions on issues that were internal and integral to these culturally distinct communities.

www.abc-clio.com

For thousands of years prior to European settlement, Canada’s aboriginal peoples practiced their own forms of government. However, with the arrival of European settlers to the continent, everything changed. Assimilationist colonial policy, aimed at integrating Canada’s First Nations into Canadian colonial society, contributed to the erosion of aboriginal governments and placed aboriginals under the rule of colonial governments. Historic agreements such as the Numbered Treaties and the Indian Act (1867) denied sovereignty and self-government to Canada’s aboriginal peoples. Though there has always been opposition from both aboriginal and nonaboriginal peoples to the state’s denial of aboriginal sovereignty, the post–World War II period in Canada was marked by intense struggle for aboriginal self-government. The postwar period saw renewed emphasis on technological, ecological, and infrastructural development in Canada. In many instances, these attempts to develop the nation placed the government in direct conflict with groups of aboriginal peoples who demanded recognition of their rights to land and title as well as sovereignty and self-government. Although the right to self-government was regularly denied to aboriginal peoples across the country, a few self-government agreements were approved. These include those for the Cree, Nakaspi, and Inuit of Northern Quebec under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975) and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (1978); the Sechelt Indian Band of British Columbia under the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act (1986); and the seven Yukon First Nations under the Final Umbrella Agreement of 1993. Importantly, none of these self-government treaties was explicitly covered by Section 35 of the Constitutional Act, 1982, the section pertaining to the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. In 1995, on the basis of promises made during the 1993 election campaign, the governing Liberal party established the Inherent Right to Self-Government policy, which affirmed that the right to sovereignty and self-government was, indeed, an existing right within Section 35 of the Constitution Act. The policy determined that Canada’s aboriginal peoples were to be given authority and/or jurisdiction in all matters considered internal and integral to aboriginal groups, and any matters deemed essential to maintaining these aboriginal governing bodies. Aboriginal governments, however, would not be granted sovereignty in the sense of sovereign independent

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Cobell Case, 1996

states; they would work in conjunction with the government of Canada, which would continue to assume jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Canadian sovereignty, defense, external relations, and anything considered to be a national matter. Ideally, self-government agreements would be negotiated in relation to land claims and would involve the participation of both federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples, and each of them would contribute financially to the negotiated aboriginal governments. This policy was important because it clearly defined self-government as a constitutionally protected right of aboriginal peoples, and constitutional protection provided a considerable roadblock to those who might challenge this right. Indeed, only the government of Canada can amend Section 35 and thus deny aboriginals the right of self-government. The first direct implementation of this constitutionally protected right of aboriginal selfgovernment occurred in 1998 with the Nisga’a Final Agreement, which covered the Nisga’a of British Columbia and was ratified by all parties in 2000. Framework agreements (agreements pertaining to issues to be discussed during negotiations) and agreements-in-principle (nonratified agreements) have been established with many aboriginal groups, and final agreements (those which are ratified and ready to be made effective through federal and provincial legislation) have been established with the Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the Yukon (2002), the Tlicho of the Northwest Territories (2002), the Kluane First Nations of the Yukon (2003), the Anishnaabe (2004), and the Kwalin Dun First Nation of the Yukon (2005). The first stand-alone self-government agreement was concluded in 2003 by the Westbank First Nation of British Columbia. Robyn Bourgeois See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements (Canada); Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement–May 29, 1993; Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999; Northeastern Quebec Agreement–January 31, 1978; Sovereignty; Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction; Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement–May 29, 1993. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AL: Hurtig.

www.abc-clio.com

727

Russell, Dan. 2000. A People’s Dream: Aboriginal SelfGovernment in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Cobell Case, 1996 On June 10, 1996, Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe, led a group to file a class action lawsuit against the U.S. government. Originally known as Cobell v. Norton, subsequently as Cobell v. Babbitt, and finally as Cobell v. Kempthorne, the plaintiffs alleged that the federal government had made a series of enormous mistakes, failing in its responsibility to keep accurate records of American Indian accounts held in trust by the United States. This is the largest law suit brought by Native peoples against the United States to date. The plaintiff claimed that Indian trust accounts affect an estimated 250,000 American Indians. Cobell has also claimed that the amount of money affected is estimated at anywhere from $50 billion to perhaps as high as $176 billion. Although the amount has yet to be determined, the case is important because it is premised on the federal government’s broad-scale negligence in its handling of the monies of Native Americans. Based on the 374 treaties signed between American Indian tribes and the U.S. government, a trust responsibility of the highest degree is to be maintained by both sides of a treaty. Hence, the federal government holds accounts for Indian tribes and individual Indian people based on treaties that were signed years ago. In 1778, the U.S. government negotiated its first treaty with an Indian tribe, the Delaware. Nearly four hundred treaties and agreements were made before an appropriations act passed in 1871 stopped the treaty-making process, although agreements were made thereafter. The treaties and agreements were official only after ratification by Congress. Since its filing in 1996, the Cobell case has encountered name changes, changes of judges, and political criticism in the media. As of 2007, the case is still in the federal court with no decision in the near future. It is certain to be a landmark decision in federal-Indian relations, and measures will need to be put in place for the safekeeping of American Indian trust accounts. Donald L. Fixico

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

728

R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996

See also Indian Appropriations Act, 1871; Treaty; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778; Trust. References and Further Reading Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in the United States and Canada 1867–1877. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996 This case was part of a trilogy of cases (the other two were R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 and R. v. Gladstone [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723) relating to aboriginal commercial fishing rights in British Columbia that were decided before the Supreme Court of Canada. In this case, Dorothy Marie Van der Peet, from the Sto:lo community, was charged with selling ten salmon caught under the authority of an Indian food fish license, contrary to British Columbian provincial legislation prohibiting the sale or barter of fish caught under such a license. The lower courts found against her, and she then appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court. She claimed an aboriginal right to sell fish and that the provincial legislation infringed this right, which was constitutionally protected under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, which states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed.” Delivering the decision for the majority of justices on August 22, 1996, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer dismissed Van der Peet’s claim to an aboriginal right to sell. The evidence was insufficient to establish a network of Sto:lo trade in fish prior to contact with Europeans. The court accepted that fishing for food and ceremonial purposes was a significant and defining feature of the Sto:lo culture, to which Van der Peet belonged. However, this was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exchange of salmon was an integral part of Sto:lo culture. Van der Peet had to prove that the exchange itself was integral to Sto:lo culture. The exchange of salmon as part of interaction of kin and family was not of suffi-

www.abc-clio.com

cient independent significance to establish an aboriginal right to exchange fish for money or other goods. Therefore, it was not an aboriginal right protected under Section 35(1). Although the claim to an aboriginal right to commercial fishing failed in this particular case, the possibility of its existence in other aboriginal communities was not ruled out. The court developed the “integral to distinctive culture” test, which requires an aboriginal group to prove that a particular practice, custom, or tradition is integral to their culture in order for it to be recognized as an aboriginal right protected under the Canadian constitution. Where it is difficult for a group to prove aboriginal title, which would allow them exclusive occupation and use of land for a variety of purposes, they may be able to show the existence of aboriginal rights to land and resources under the “integral to distinctive culture” test. One of the factors that courts must take into account in applying the test is the perspective of aboriginal peoples, including their oral history. The court also outlined some important principles in the general adjudication of aboriginal rights cases. The intent and and purpose of Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 is recognition and reconciliation. It recognizes the prior occupation of North America by aboriginal peoples and seeks to reconcile the preexistence of aboriginal societies with the Crown’s sovereignty. The court clearly identified aboriginal title and rights as arising from the existence of distinctive aboriginal communities occupying “the land as their forefathers had done for centuries,” a finding reached earlier in Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia. The Chief Justice explained that aboriginal rights are “distinctive” because of aboriginal prior occupation of lands, “and this fact, above all others, separates aboriginal peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian society and which mandates their special legal and constitutional status.” Also, the Crown has a fiduciary obligation toward aboriginal peoples and must act honorably and in good faith. This obligation extends to all aboriginal peoples whether or not on reserves or aboriginal title lands. The case has been criticized for taking a “frozen rights” approach to aboriginal rights in requiring precontact evidence of a practice, custom, or tradition integral to the group’s culture. But the court did not rule out the possibility of aboriginal rights containing a commercial aspect to them, and this depends on the evidence presented at court in each case. Thus, aboriginal fishing rights, including

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997

aboriginal commercial fishing rights, if they exist on the facts of the case, have not been extinguished in British Columbia, as was held in R. v. Gladstone. Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Barsh, Russel Lawrence, and James Youngblood Henderson. 1997. “The Supreme Court’s Van der Peet Trilogy: Naïve Imperialism and Ropes and Sand,” 42 McGill Law Journal 994. Borrows, John. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,” 22 American Indian Law Review 37. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, AL: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. R. v. Van der Peet (1996) 2 S.C.R. 507.

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 On December 11, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. The critical issue was whether the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en people had aboriginal title to the vast tracts of land comprising their territory in British Columbia. It is the leading Canadian case on aboriginal title, marking the beginning of Canada’s definitive judicial recognition of aboriginal title, its source and content. The actual court hearing took 356 days, included oral testimony from aboriginal peoples, and was the culmination of several years of litigation in the lower courts. The court did not actually decide the nature and content of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en aboriginal title because there were evidentiary problems in establishing its existence in any part of their territory. However, the court gave a strong indication that it favored resolution of the matter through negotiations undertaken in good faith by all parties. Importantly for future aboriginal claimants, the court identified several requirements for the proof of aboriginal title, including its content and nature: (1) historical occupation—the aboriginal claimant group must show that it occupied the land at the time the Crown asserted sovereignty over it; (2) physical

www.abc-clio.com

729

occupation—the claimant group must show physical occupation of the land through factors such as dwellings, cultivation or enclosure of fields, regular use of definite tracts of land for hunting, fishing, or exploitation of resources; (3) continuity—where it is difficult to show pre-sovereignty occupation of the land, the claimant group may rely on present occupation so long as they can show substantial connection between the people and the land; and (4) exclusivity—the claimant group must show intention and capacity to retain exclusive occupation and control over the land. For the first time in legal history, the court outlined the source and content of aboriginal title. Aboriginal title is defined as the right to exclusive use and occupation of land for a variety of purposes, which need not be aspects of those aboriginal practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to distinctive aboriginal cultures. This allows for different forms of development activity, including mineral rights, nontraditional uses of land, and commercial exploitation. The court confirmed that the source of aboriginal title is prior occupation of lands by aboriginal peoples, and preexisting systems of aboriginal law: “The first is the physical fact of occupation, which derives from the common law principle that occupation is proof of possession in law . . . [because possession was before the assertion of British sovereignty] . . . this suggests a second source for aboriginal title—the relationship between the common law and pre-existing systems of aboriginal law.” The court also outlined an “inherent limitation” to aboriginal title: lands cannot be used “in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the attachment to the land which forms the basis of the group’s claim to aboriginal title.” For example, land used mainly as hunting grounds cannot be used for strip-mining, as this would destroy the land’s value. This recognizes the continuing importance of land to aboriginal groups and their value systems. As trustees of the land, they preserve its use and resources for future generations. The court clearly stated that this limitation is not intended as a “legal straitjacket on aboriginal peoples who have a legitimate legal claim to the land.” Another restriction on aboriginal title is its inalienability, that is, it cannot be sold, transferred, or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown: “[A]lienation would bring to an end the entitlement of the aboriginal people to occupy the land and would terminate their relationship with it . . . the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

730

Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999

inalienability of aboriginal lands is, at least in part, a function of the common law principle that settlers in colonies must derive their title from Crown grant and, therefore, cannot acquire title through purchase from aboriginal inhabitants. It is also, again only in part, a function of a general policy ‘to ensure that Indians are not dispossessed of their entitlements’.” In balancing the needs of aboriginal and nonaboriginal peoples, the court also discussed the possibility of legitimate Crown infringement on aboriginal title lands where there is a valid legislative objective with a compelling and substantial purpose: “[T]he development of agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose [reconciliation] and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.” Özlem Ülgen See also Aboriginal Title; Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999. References and Further Reading Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. 1997. 3 S.C.R. 1010. Elliott, D.W. 1998. “Delgamuukw: Back to the Court?” 26(1) Manitoba Law Journal 97. McNeil, Kent. 1998. “Defining Aboriginal Title in the 90’s: Has the Supreme Court Finally Got It Right? Twelfth Annual Roberts Lecture, March 25, York University, Toronto, Ontario. Ülgen, Özlem. 2000. “Aboriginal Title in Canada: Recognition and Reconciliation,” 47 Netherlands International Law Review 146.

Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999 The premise of this case was whether an 1837 treaty that guaranteed hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for the Mille Lacs Band (Chippewa) was extinguished through three separate but interlinked decisions. The first decision was an executive order issued by President Zachary Taylor in 1850 abrogating the usufructuary rights—a special property right according to which one party (Mille Lacs Band) has the right to utilize and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another (United States), so long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. The second decision was an 1855

www.abc-clio.com

treaty purporting to abrogate the usufructuary rights of the treaty of 1837. The third was Minnesota’s admission to the Union in 1858 under the Minnesota Enabling Act, which claimed to extinguish the usufructuary rights of the Chippewa established in the treaty of 1837. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Article V of the 1837 treaty, which guaranteed usufructuary rights of the Chippewa, were not abrogated on the land ceded to the United States. The Court was divided five to four in favor of the Chippewa, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 29, 1837, a treaty was signed by several Chippewa bands, including the Mille Lacs band, ceding land in present-day Minnesota and Wisconsin. The treaty conveyed land to the United States in return for twenty annual payments of money and goods. The integral part of the treaty for this particular case was Article 5, which guaranteed the Chippewa the right to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded lands at the pleasure of the president of the United States. Thereafter, pressure mounted for the removal of the Chippewa from the ceded lands, and on February 6, 1850, President Zachary Taylor issued an executive order commanding the Chippewa to move from the ceded lands and revoked their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed under the treaty of 1837. Land acquisition was fundamental to the United States, and in the treaty of 1855 it acquired land from the Chippewa and set aside a reservation for the tribe. In 1858, Minnesota joined the Union, and it was believed that, under the “equal footing doctrine” and the Minnesota Enabling Act, its entry extinguished all Native American rights guaranteed by treaty. In 1990, the Mille Lacs band and several members sued Minnesota, its officials, and the Department of Natural Resources. In the mid-1990s, other Wisconsin bands of Chippewa joined the suit. The district court held that the Chippewa retained their usufructuary rights under the treaty of 1837 and resolved several resource allocation and regulation issues. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the president did not have the authority to issue the removal order, because it did not arise from the Indian Removal Act of 1830, he failed to obtain Chippewa consent, and the executive order did not evolve from the Constitution or an act of Congress. Furthermore, the removal order of 1850 issued by the president was

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology, 2000

inseverable from the section of the order purporting to abrogate Chippewa usufructuary rights, and thus it was invalidated. The court stated that the treaty of 1837 did not authorize the removal order, it did not mention or make provisions for removal, and the issue was not discussed during treaty negotiations. Thus, the primary purpose of the executive order of 1850 was the removal of the Chippewa and not the abrogation of usufructuary rights. The Supreme Court held that the treaty of 1855 did not extinguish the usufructuary rights guaranteed under the treaty of 1837. The Court’s reasons were that the treaty of 1855 did not mention the treaty of 1837 or usufructuary rights, and its purpose was only to cede land to the United States and not to extinguish the usufructuary rights guaranteed in 1837. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Chippewa did not relinquish their usufructuary rights on Minnesota’s entry into the Union in 1858. The Court’s reasons were that Congress had not clearly expressed the abrogation of usufructuary rights and that Minnesota’s Enabling Act had failed to mention the rights. The Supreme Court ruled that a tribe’s treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on state land can coexist with state natural resources management and are not implicitly terminated at statehood, and the Senate did not intend to terminate the rights guaranteed under the treaty of 1837 when Minnesota was admitted to the Union. The Supreme Court issued a decision that protected the fishing, hunting, and gathering rights of the Chippewa guaranteed to them in the treaty of 1837. Moreover, this is the first Supreme Court decision to protect Native American treaty rights since New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983), and the Chippewa were vindicated in pursuing a judgment in favor of their treaty rights, originally guaranteed to them more than 162 years ago. Dewi I. Ball See also Dodge, Henry; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968; Sandy Lake, Minnesota; Sovereignty; Treaty. References and Further Reading Danziger, Edmund, Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University of Colorado Press.

www.abc-clio.com

731

Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology, 2000 On September 8, 2000, Kevin Gover, assistant secretary of the interior for Indian affairs, made history. In his capacity as the highest federal official directly in charge of federal-Indian affairs, Gover made a public apology to American Indians in a ceremony recognizing the 175th anniversary of the establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was founded as the Office of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs received its current name in 1947. At present, Kevin Gover, a Pawnee, is a lawyer and a professor of law at Arizona State University. Under the Clinton administration, Gover was appointed to serve as assistant secretary from 1997 to January 2001. In his statement, Gover made it clear that he did not speak for the U.S. government but only for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for which he was empowered to speak. He pointed out that the Indian Office was started during a time when the United States was at war with Indians, and that the agency had set out to destroy Native peoples; Sand Creek, for example, illustrated the deliberate actions taken to harm Indians. Gover advised that the beginning of the twenty-first century represented a prime time for reconciliation and for showing greater respect for Indian tribes and their people. Such past atrocities would never happen again, according to Gover. In retrospect, Assistant Secretary Gover’s apology was the first of its kind and an extraordinary ending to 175 difficult years of BIA paternalism toward American Indians. American Indians had endured war, suffering, and poor health conditions while the U.S. government often worked against Indian communities. In the end, Indian people and their tribal governments did more than just survive; they now prosper in a period known as the era of Indian self-determination. Donald L. Fixico See also Black Kettle; Indian Self-Determination; Trust; Trust Responsibility.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

732

Rice v. Cayetano, 2000

References and Further Reading Dippie, Brian. 1982. The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Iverson, Peter. 1998. “We Are Still Here”: American Indians in the Twentieth Century. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson. Tyler, S. Lyman. 1973. A History of Indian Policy. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. New York: W.W. Norton.

Rice v. Cayetano, 2000 In Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), the Supreme Court invalidated the State of Hawaii’s definition of “Native Hawaiian” for purposes of voting in an election of the board of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). OHA administers programs benefiting two subclasses of Hawaiian citizenry: Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian state constitution limited the right to vote for the nine OHA trustees and the right to run in the statewide election for the position of OHA trustee to those two subclasses. The court held that, because the definitions of these subclasses were racial rather than political in nature, the voting restrictions violated the Fifteenth Amendment. At first glance, it appears that the rights of yet another group of indigenous inhabitants of this nation were trampled upon. A closer inspection of the case reveals, however, that the Native Hawaiians were, instead, victims of a constitutionally faulty remedial infrastructure that was based on their race rather than their inherent sovereignty as indigenous people. The crux of the majority opinion was that the voting restrictions were both racially defined and imposed by the state and thus were constitutionally impermissible. Although the majority opinion did not elucidate acceptable alternatives, it implies that, had the voting restrictions been based on membership in a Native Hawaiian political entity, and had that entity, rather than the State of Hawaii, been the administrator of the resources controlled by OHA, it is likely that the outcome would have been favorable to the Native Hawaiians. The constitutional defect identified by the majority was not an attempt to provide a measure of self-determination for Native Hawaiians; rather, the defect was a faulty infrastructure that attempted to

www.abc-clio.com

promote such self-determination as a function of race under the auspices of the state. Until 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a separate sovereign nation and entered into a number of treaties with the United States, first in 1826 and subsequently in 1849, 1875, and 1887 (Clarkson 2002). It is important to note that all of the treaties between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii treated Native Hawaiians as a collective political entity, not as an ethnic group. With tacit assistance from the United States, the monarchy was illegally overthrown by nonindigenous settlers in 1893, and in 1898 Hawaii was annexed as part of the United States. At the moment of annexation, all former Crown and government lands were ceded to the United States. As with the Indians on the mainland, the United States also assumed a trustee relationship over the Native population, with similarly disastrous results. By 1920, it was clear that Hawaii’s Native population was not faring well. Rather than restoring the land base to a Native Hawaiian political entity, however, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), whereby two hundred thousand acres of former Crown lands were set aside for the purpose of leasing homesteads to individual Native Hawaiians for a nominal fee. Similar in purpose and effect to the General Allotment Act, the well-intentioned HHCA was overwhelmed by the ambitions of others who coveted the lands. As with allotment, much of the land given to the Native Hawaiians was of poor quality. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and Congress ceded its trust responsibility to the state, along with 1.2 million acres intended for, among other things, the betterment of the conditions of the Native Hawaiians. In 1978, Hawaii established the OHA to implement its trust obligation. Unfortunately, the OHA was not the result of a government-togovernment relationship with a Native Hawaiian political entity but was instead based on racial definitions of “Native Hawaiian” or “Hawaiian.” These particular race-based classifications would be the linchpin in the case against the racially exclusive system of election of the OHA board of trustees. Harold “Freddy” Rice descended from preannexation residents of the islands, but because he was neither “Native Hawaiian nor “Hawaiian,” his application to vote in the OHA election was denied. Rice sued Governor Ben Cayetano, arguing that the voting restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

National Museum of the American Indian, 2004

The state argued that Native Hawaiians were just as “Native” as Indians on the mainland and had a similar trust beneficiary relationship, and thus the Court’s prior rulings, specifically Morton v. Mancari, would allow for special programs for Native Hawaiians, such as OHA. The district court agreed, as did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Voting seven to two, however, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the OHA voting restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The aftermath of Rice v. Cayetano was twofold. The non-Native interests in Hawaii initiated litigation to further erode the trust responsibility and infrastructure of the State of Hawaii, while certain Native Hawaiian groups sought a legislative remedy that would finally establish a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Gavin Clarkson See also General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Morton v. Mancari, 1974. References and Further Reading Clarkson, Gavin. 2002. “Not Because They Are Brown, but Because of It: Why the Good Guys Lost in Rice v. Cayetano, and Why They Didn’t Have to Lose.” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 2: 318–362. Cohen, Felix S., and Rennard Strickland, eds. 1982. Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Melody. 1991. Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Sand Creek Massacre Site Return, 2002 On May 6, 2002, by federal legislation, the U.S. government returned the Sand Creek Massacre site to the Cheyenne and Arapahoe tribes. The historic site is located in southeast Colorado. This legislation was introduced by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, a Cheyenne and the only American Indian in Congress in 2002. This infamous incident happened during the early morning on November 29, 1864. It was not an act of misunderstanding but a deliberate decision to inflict suffering and death on Indians in the same area where Colorado settlers harbored ill feelings toward Native peoples. Cheyenne and Arapahoe warriors defended their homeland against white settlers who desired their land. Colonel John Chiving-

www.abc-clio.com

733

ton, the territorial governor, raised a local militia and planned the attack on the Indians. The result was a devastating assault on the Cheyenne and Arapahoe, who were led by Peace Chief Black Kettle of the Cheyenne and Chief White Antelope of the Arapahoe. The two tribes were directed to camp near Fort Lyon in southeast Colorado, where they were regarded as peaceful Indians. On that winter morning, the Indian encampment under a white flag of truce was attacked by Chivington and his men. They killed and then mutilated the bodies of almost the entire camp, slaughtering women and children as well. The Cheyenne and Arapahoe responded in revenge, leading to more bloodshed between Indians and whites. Initially, Chivington was exalted locally as a hero, but realists viewed the attack as a massacre of peaceful Indians. This infamous event became a main point in the correction of wrongs against Native people, as noted by historians and also acknowledged in Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover’s apology to American Indians on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2000. Donald L. Fixico See also Black Kettle; Chivington, John Milton; Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 28, 1867. References and Further Reading Berthrong, Donald J. 1976. The Cheyenne and Arapaho Ordeal: Reservation and Agency Life in the Indian Territory, 1875–1907. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Berthrong, Donald J. 1963. The Southern Cheyenne. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Hatch, Thom. 2004. Black Kettle: The Cheyenne Chief Who Sought Peace but Found War. John Wiley. Vestal, Stanley, ed. 1934. Early Days among the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

National Museum of the American Indian, 2004 The result of a massive effort, the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) opened in Washington, D.C., on September 21, 2004. NMAI is a part of the Smithsonian Mall and displays Native American history and cultures representing the entire Western Hemisphere. The collections at NMAI comprise an estimated eighty thousand artifacts of Native peoples.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

734

Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act, 2005

Rick West, a Cheyenne attorney, was the founding director of NMAI. West was successful in raising funding for the new museum, and he promoted NMAI in the media very well. His leadership proved to be invaluable in getting NMAI off the ground and in building positive relationships with tribal museums and other museums throughout the country. As of this date, West is retiring from the directorship, and NMAI is off to a strong start. The National Museum of the American Indian enjoys a national and international reputation as an increasing number of people in the United States and the world become interested in Native peoples. In the early years of the twenty-first century, scholars in Finland, England, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and Japan have exhibited impressive scholarly knowledge of American Indians and have sent visitors and college students to NMAI to learn about Indian people and their diverse cultures. Donald L. Fixico See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990; Sacred Sites; Sovereignty; Treaty. References and Further Readings Jacobson, Lisa, ed. 2006. “Review Roundtable: The National Museum of the American Indian.” The Public Historian: A Journal of Public History, 28(2): 47–90. Messenger, Phyliss Mauch, ed. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and Culture. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act, 2005 In August 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act. Title V of this law is known as the Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act. After several delays, Congress enacted this timely legislation. The Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act focuses on improving relations between tribes and the federal government, giving tribal governments more control over the development of tribal lands. Energy resource management is essential to the tribes as accelerating climate change

www.abc-clio.com

increases the importance of all energy resources on the continent. In addition to its tribal focus, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) will play an important role in the development of tribal resources. Founded in Denver in 1975 by twenty-five tribes holding such energy resources as coal, oil, uranium, timber, and water, CERT presently has a membership of fifty-three tribes, including a few Canadian First Nations groups. Indian tribes hold more than one-third of the coal in the West on reservation lands, as well as large amounts of oil, especially in Wyoming and Oklahoma. Timber-rich areas are in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington. As the largest coal-producing tribe, the Navajos are particularly affected by this legislation, followed by the Crow, the second-largest coalproducing tribe. The Blackfeet of Montana develop fifty million barrels of oil per year. In 2004, holdings of the Ute and Southern Ute in northeast Utah accounted for nearly 36 percent of oil sold from Indian leases, and Shoshone and Arapaho holdings in Wyoming accounted for 21.54 percent. The Osage in Oklahoma continue to hold impressive amounts of oil under their lands. The Colville Confederated Tribes maximize timber resources and are one of the top tribal groups harvesting timber. The Warm Springs of Oregon own and operate Warm Springs Power Enterprises, the largest hydropower company in Oregon, and the Flathead tribes of Montana (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes) have timber industry sales. The Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act will have major impact on all 562 federally recognized tribes, and nearly sixty tribes possess energy resources that the nation needs. An important part of the self-determination development includes water, especially in the West and Southwest. Finally, the act will profoundly affect the development of Indian sovereignty and tribal governance. Donald L. Fixico

ABC-CLIO

See also Indian Water Rights and Treaties; Property: Land and Natural Resources; Treaty. References and Further Readings Ambler, Marjane. 1990. Breaking the Iron Bonds: Indian Control of Energy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado.

1-800-368-6868

Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock Café, 2007

Wilkinson, Charles. 2004. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. New York and London: W.W. Norton.

Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock Café, 2007 On April 7, 2007, the Seminole tribe of Florida bought Hard Rock International Restaurants for $965 million. In doing this, the Seminoles became the owners of the chain of Hard Rock Cafés, which are spread throughout the United States. This business transaction made the Seminoles a tribe with nationwide investments. By purchasing this restaurant chain, the Florida Seminoles became a national mega-casino tribe operating in more than one state. By 2005, the total profit made by tribes involved in Indian gaming was more than $20 billion. Of the more than two hundred tribes involved in gaming, only 20 percent are considered mega-casino tribes—tribes that earn about 80 percent of the total revenue generated by gaming. The Florida Seminole are now among them. The Seminoles of Florida started the Indian gaming industry, which began in the late 1970s with a bingo operation in the southern tip of the state. In the Butterworth court case, the State of Florida unsuccessfully sued the Seminole for operating illegally. The court decided in favor of the Seminole, finding that the tribe’s operation of a bingo game on their treaty reservation was immune from state regulations and laws. Unregulated bingo as an industry then spread to other tribes, such as the Pequot of Connecticut, who visited the Florida Seminoles for advice. Unregulated Indian gaming led to the introduction of legislation during the same time that the Cabazon tribe of southern California became involved in a lawsuit, which they won. Again, Indian sovereignty was protected by a court ruling, which compelled Congress to pass legislation pro-

www.abc-clio.com

735

tecting the tribes from organized crime; and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) became law in 1988. The Indian gaming industry remains in an upward-spiraling growth pattern as more tribes open casinos. The Florida Seminoles remain a leader in this capitalistic endeavor, and this has benefited the small tribe with much internal programmatic development. It is indeed a time of Indian selfdetermination for the Seminoles, who, ironically, numbered as few as 350 after the Third Seminole War (1855–1858). Although the majority of the tribespeople were removed to Indian Territory to become the Oklahoma Seminoles, those who fought to remain in Florida have prospered impressively. Donald L. Fixico See also American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Indian Country; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988; Sovereignty; Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation; Treaty. References and Further Readings Ambrose I. Lane, Sr. 1995. Return of the Buffalo: The Story Behind America’s Indian Gaming Explosion. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Eadington, William R. 1990. Indian Gaming and the Law. Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming. Eisler, Kim Isaac. 2001. Revenge of the Pequots: How a Small Native American Tribe Created the World’s Most Profitable Casino. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kersey, Harry A., Jr. 1996. An Assumption of Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation among the Florida Seminoles, 1953–1979. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Northrup, Jim. 1997. The Rez Road Follies: Canoes, Casinos, Computers and Birch Bark Baskets. New York: Kodansha America.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Biographies Adair, William P. (1829–1880) William P. Adair was an assistant chief of the Cherokee Nation during the Civil War. He led a band of Native Americans in the Confederate Army and fought at the Battle of Pea Ridge, but, most important, he was a negotiator of treaties for the Cherokee Nation in selling, saving, and acquiring Cherokee land. From the 1840s until the 1860s, Cherokees sought compensation from Texas for lands lost in 1839. In the mid-1850s, the tribe sent William P. Adair to Washington, D.C., to petition Congress for permission to sue the state of Texas for the return of one and a half million acres in East Texas. For the next hundred years, the Cherokee periodically renewed their claim against the state of Texas but without success. The Civil War was a major event in the lives of the southern Indians, who had been removed to Indian Territory in the antebellum period. Early attempts to remain neutral crumbled under pressure from their Arkansas and Texas neighbors, clever Confederate diplomacy, and indifference from the United States because of other problems. By the fall of 1861, the Five Civilized Tribes of Indian Territory had signed Confederate treaties and had organized military companies to serve as a home guard. As the Civil War neared, neutrality appeared unlikely for the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek, and Cherokee of Indian Territory. Their relations with both the southern states and the federal government had been unpleasant, as both had forced the tribes’ removal from the lower South. Washington authorities controlled the investments of the tribes. The tribes knew that, if they changed their allegiance, all their investments would be lost, so they consented to the will of the Confederacy. In May 1861, the Confederate government authorized three Native American regiments to fight in the war, one of which was the Cherokee regiment. During the war, William P. Adair became the commander of a brigade of Native Americans organized by General Albert Pike. He gained a measure

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

738

Adams, Hank

of fame as a result of the Confederate defeat in the Battle of Pea Ridge and the Battle of Poison Springs (Arkansas) in1864, but he always envisioned the reacquisition of his tribal land. When it was realized that the South was losing the war, Chief Stand Watie sent Adair and other members of the Ridge Party (Cherokees with white heritage) to meet with General Francis Herron to negotiate terms of surrender for the Confederate Cherokees, and a new, postwar era began. The Ridge Party believed that it was in the best interests of the Cherokee to seek favorable terms from the U.S. government to get their land back before squatters and state governments made matters worse. The reacquisition of the Cherokee’s land became Adair’s life’s work. In 1869, Adair and Clement N. Vann were appointed commissioners on behalf of the Cherokee Nation to meet with the Osages in council, to remove them from Cherokee land. Adair continued to fight for the Cherokee Nation until his death in Washington, D.C., on October 23, 1880. Fred Lindsay See also Pike, Albert; Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835; Watie, Stand. References and Further Reading Conley, Robert J. 2005. The Cherokee Nation: A History. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Everett, Dianna. 1990. The Texas Cherokees: A People Between Two Fires, 1819–1840. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. King, Duane K. 1979. The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled History. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Adams, Hank (1943–) Hank Adams is an Assiniboine-Sioux political activist, leader, and organizer who was important in the struggle over Indian fishing and treaty rights in the Northwest section of the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Although the activism of Adams dates to his high school days, he began to be noticed when he became involved with the Democratic Party in the early 1960s. A supporter of John F. Kennedy and a campaign worker for Robert Kennedy’s presidential bid in 1968, it was Adams’s work with citizens’ rights advocate Ralph Nader that gave him access to

www.abc-clio.com

Marlon Brando (left) gives 40 acres of land to Hank Adams (1943–), an Assiboine-Sioux and head of the Survival of American Indians Association in 1974. Adams, a participant in the fish-ins of the 1960s and the Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972, has helped to protect Native American rights in legislatures and the courts. (Bettmann/Corbis)

U.S. senators, whom he acquainted with Native American issues. It was also in the 1960s that Adams became involved in the Red Power Movement and became a member of the National Indian Youth Council. As an advocate, he played a crucial role at the “fish-ins” in the Northwest, fighting for Indian fishing rights protesting Washington State’s policies regarding them. Adams was born on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana at a place known as Wolf Point, which was commonly referred to as Poverty Flats. He was very active in Moclips High School in Montana, where he was student body president, editor of the school newspaper, and a member of both the football and the basketball teams. His interest in politics was emphasized after his graduation from high school and his move to California, but his activist career began in April 1964, when he refused induction into the U.S. Army until Indian treaty rights were recognized. His attempt failed, and he ulti-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

American Indian Movement (AIM)

mately served in the army, but this helped authenticate his political commitment. After serving in the army, Adams joined the fight for Indian fishing rights in the Northwest. As chairman of the National Indian Youth Council’s Washington State Project, Adams organized fish-ins and demonstrations protesting the state’s policies on Native American fishing rights. In the early 1960s, Adams and other Native Americans claimed that the treaties signed in the 1850s guaranteed them the right to fish at traditional sites. State officials, sport fishermen, and commercial fishermen disagreed, and this led to serious confrontations over fishing rights. In 1964, Adams helped organize a march on the Washington State capitol in Olympia. The march included a thousand Native Americans and the actor Marlon Brando. This demonstration captured the public’s attention and was followed by other marches and fish-ins. In 1968, Adams became the director of the Survival of American Indians Association, a local western Washington organization concerned primarily with Native American fishing rights. The struggle for the recognition of Indian treaty fishing rights was strengthened with a decisive victory when federal judge George Boldt ruled in favor of the Native Americans in a landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Washington, in 1974. The judge ruled that treaty Indians were entitled to 50 percent of the commercially harvested catch in Washington State. The Boldt Decision, as it is called, forced the state of Washington to recognize Native American treaty fishing rights. Although he was not always in the limelight, Adams was given credit for developing the Twenty Points that were presented to the White House at the tragic Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972; he also served as a negotiator between the White House and the Freedom Fighters of Wounded Knee. Adams has had numerous articles published in newspapers and journals, and his views have also been communicated in film and on television. He has been involved in monitoring and lobbying the Washington State legislature and twice entered primary elections as a congressional candidate. Fred Lindsay See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Trail of Broken Treaties; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973. References and Further Reading Blue Cloud, Peter, ed. 1972. Alcatraz Is Not an Island. Berkeley, CA: Wingbow Press.

www.abc-clio.com

739

Brand, Johanna. 1993. The Life and Death of Anna Mae Aquash. Toronto: James Lorimer. Cahn, Edgar S. 1975. Our Brothers’ Keeper: The Indian in White America. New York: New American Library. Caldwell, E. K. 1999. Dreaming the Dawn: Conversations with Native Artists and Activists. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Chaat, Paul, and Robert Warrior. 1996. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement From Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York. New Press. Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. 1988. Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Boston: South End Press. Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cornell, Stephen. 1988. Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Fortunate Eagle, Adam. 1992. Alcatraz! Alcatraz! The Indian Occupation of 1969–1971. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. Johnson, Troy R., ed. 1994. Alcatraz, Indian Land Forever. Los Angeles: University of California American Indian Studies Center. Johnson, Troy. 1996. The Occupation of Alcatraz Island: Indian Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian Activism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne, eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson, eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight for Freedom. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Kahn, Edgar S. 1969. Our Brother’s Keeper: The Indian in White America. New York: New Community Press. Steiner, Stan. 1968. The New Indians. New York: Delta Books. Stern, Kenneth. 1994. Loud Hawk: The United States versus The American Indian Movement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

American Indian Movement (AIM) The American Indian Movement (AIM) was formed in 1968 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to protest police brutality. Founders of AIM included Clyde Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, and George Mitchell. The movement became one of the most important and prominent Native American protest organizations,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

740

American Indian Movement (AIM)

Members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) beat a drum in support of their cause during the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. AIM’s flag is displayed behind the group. (Corbis/Bettmann-UPI)

campaigning on many issues affecting Native Americans. The honoring of treaty rights was foremost among their demands. AIM began as an urban organization in response to urban issues. It was part of the social protest movements of the 1960s insofar as its tactics and some of its rhetoric and concerns were inspired by other civil rights movements. Most significantly, it was inspired by the African American protest organization the Black Panthers, which called for “Black Power.” “Red Power” became an important part of the rhetoric and ideology of AIM. AIM was most prominent and influential in Native American affairs in the early 1970s. Some of the important and high-profile campaigns organized by or participated in by AIM included the occupation of Alcatraz Island in 1969, the Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972, and the occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. After the controversial and violent

www.abc-clio.com

Wounded Knee, membership and interest in AIM declined. AIM’s confrontational style and radical demands alienated some and also led to significant repression by the government. One of the most important concerns of AIM, especially in the 1970s, was the honoring of treaty rights. The Trail of Broken Treaties protest, organized largely by AIM, specifically sought to call public attention to the history of broken treaties between the U.S. government and Native American tribes. The occupation of Wounded Knee by AIM members, while concerned with complicated tribal politics on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, also called for the honoring of the 1868 treaty between the United States and the Lakota Sioux, placing the breaking of the treaty in a context of the breaking of some 371 others. The result of the breaking of the 1868 treaty, AIM declared, was “that our water has been stolen, our minerals have been stolen, and our land has been stolen. All this must be paid for retroactively and in perpetuity” (AIM Statement on Wounded Knee, November 1973). In general, however, much of the rhetoric of AIM’s campaigns was more universal than particular. Rather than calling for the honoring of any particular treaty, AIM called for a return to the treatment of Native American tribes and nations as sovereign people. This reflected the panIndian nature of AIM as it evolved. The social protest movement of the younger generation of Native Americans who were represented in AIM tried to construct an “American Indian” identity based on a history shared across tribes of poor treatment and the continual breaching of treaty rights. AIM also fostered cultural pride and celebrated Native American culture and heritage. In calling for treaty rights, AIM envisioned complete sovereignty for Native Americans and the return of confiscated lands. Their radicalism made the U.S. government decidedly uncomfortable and even hostile. Nor was AIM’s view shared by all Native Americans. In response to the Trail of Broken Treaties, the Nixon administration declared that treaty making between the U.S. government and Native Americans had been forbidden by Congress in 1871. The Native American demand for selfdetermination—the right of Native Americans to run the programs that affected their lives and to participate in shaping government policies—was addressed by the federal government in the American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975. Rather than sovereignty, self-determination has

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

American Indian Policy Review Commission

continued to be the more persistent and more prominent demand of Native Americans. Since the 1970s, AIM has continued to function as an important Native American political organization, although perhaps more locally than nationally. AIM has campaigned for civil rights and other issues affecting local Native American communities, for example, education, stereotypes of Native Americans in the media, job training, and fishing rights. Yet AIM’s concern to bring treaty rights and the sovereignty issue to public attention has been and continues to be an important part of the history of Native American political activism. Amanda Laugesen See also American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Sovereignty; Trail of Broken Treaties; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973. References and Further Reading American Indian Cultural Support. AIM and Wounded Knee II Documents, 1973–1983. Accessed February 8, 2005, at http://www .aics.org/WK/index.html (c.1999). Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.

American Indian Policy Review Commission In 1973, Senator James Abourezk (South Dakota) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 133, a bill providing for the establishment of a federal commission to review all aspects of U.S. policy, law, and administration relating to the affairs of American Indian tribes. Congress passed the resolution on January 2, 1975, creating the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Congress charged the commission with reviewing federal policy toward Indians and reporting their findings. Specifically, Congress directed the commission to analyze “the historical and legal developments underlying the Indians’ relationship with the Federal Government and . . . the nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of policy and programs for the benefit of Indians.”

www.abc-clio.com

741

The commission consisted of eleven officers: three senators, three congressmen, and five American Indian representatives—three from federally recognized tribes, one from a non-federally recognized tribe, and one representing “urban Indians.” The commission established eleven different task forces. Each task force conducted extensive review of particular federal policy areas, such as the federal-tribal relationship, tribal governments, Indian education, Indian health, and reservation and resource development and protection, then reported its findings to the Policy Review Commission. As the commission’s work progressed, the need became clear for a full Senate committee with oversight and legislative authority to receive the commission’s report and act on its recommendations. In fact, one of the commission’s final recommendations was the creation of a special Indian affairs committee in the Senate. Accordingly, the Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977 included a provision to establish a temporary Select Committee on Indian Affairs having jurisdiction over all proposed legislation and other matters relating to Indian affairs. The Indian Policy Review Commission submitted its major recommendations to Congress in May 1977. The commission proposed replacement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with an independent Indian agency, and that the new agency contract directly with tribes for the same services then provided by the BIA. Although experts and policymakers continue to debate the commission’s legacy, the two-year review did substantially increase the participation of congressional legislators in Indian affairs. Moreover, the review initiated a process limiting the role of the BIA and did more to promote the concept of sovereignty—that is, tribal selfgovernance—than anything since the Nixon administration’s development of a plan to strengthen tribal autonomy and economic development in 1970. Nixon’s plan led eventually to the passage of the American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act on January 4, 1975. The Policy Review Commission also felt that procedures should be “established so that all tribes will be guaranteed their unique relationship with the United States.” The report then recommended specific criteria for the formal recognition of tribes not then recognized by the federal government. Two critical developments arose immediately from the commission’s recommendations. First, in 1977, the Senate established the Committee on Indian Affairs, making it a temporary select committee

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

742

Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou

set to disband at the close of the 95th Congress. However, following several term extensions, on June 6, 1984, the Senate voted to make the committee permanent. This committee has full authority to study the unique issues facing American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native peoples and to propose legislation to deal with these issues. Essentially following the Policy Review Commission’s task forces, these issues include, but are not limited to, Indian education, economic development, land management, trust responsibilities, health care, and claims against the United States. Second, in 1978 Congress outlined and adopted a set of specific criteria for federal recognition and created a subagency within the BIA to accept and address formal petitions for recognition. However, aside from laying the foundations for the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and the current federal recognition process in 1978, Congress did not enact the commission’s recommendations. This failure was in some measure due to the departure of key legislative sponsors, such as Senator James Abourezk, as well as to a backlash from several western legislators who feared that their constituencies would feel threatened by greater tribal sovereignty. Nevertheless, certain commission recommendations gradually influenced policymakers. For instance, by the late 1980s Congress had authorized the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project, which transferred significant administrative functions (as well as funding) from the BIA to selected federally recognized tribes. In essence, the self-governance project implemented some of the commission’s original views. Thus, despite lacking many immediate results in 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission set forth a new vision of the federal-Indian relationship, a vision that continues to attract increased political support. C. S. Everett See also American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Federally Recognized Tribes; Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading American Indian Policy Review Commission. 1977. Final Report Submitted to Congress, May 17, 1977. [Microfilm]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. American Indian Policy Review Commission. 1977–1978. Meetings of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. [Microfilm.] Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

www.abc-clio.com

Brown, Anthony D. 1979. New Directions in Federal Indian Policy: A Review of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Los Angeles: University of California American Indian Studies Center. Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou (1945–c. 1975) Anna Mae Pictou Aquash was one of the leading women of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the early 1970s. Anna Mae Aquash was a staunch advocate for American Indian rights. Despite her many endeavors as an activist, however, she is often remembered for her untimely and mysterious murder on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Born to Mi’kmaq parents on March 27, 1945, near Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, Anna Mae, along with her two older sisters and younger brother, spent much of her youth in poverty. Her father, Francis Thomas Levi, left the family before Anna Mae’s birth. Her mother, Mary Ellen Pictou, married Noel Sapier four years later, and the family moved to Pictou Landing, a Mi’kmaq reserve in Nova Scotia. Sapier practiced traditional craftwork and instilled into his stepdaughter a sense of her heritage and culture. While at Pictou Landing, Anna Mae contracted ocular tuberculosis, which ultimately spread to her lungs and, although treated, left her temporarily weakened and in ill health. Sapier died in 1956, and Mary Ellen Pictou abandoned her children to marry another man. Anna Mae’s insecure family life, combined with the racial taunts from her non-Indian schoolmates, had a detrimental effect on her secondary school grades. She attended Milford High School but dropped out at the end of the ninth grade. In 1962, Anna Mae journeyed to Maine to work the potato and berry harvest and then moved to Boston with Jake Maloney, another Mi’kmac Indian. She secured a job at the Elvin Selow sewing factory, while Jake opened a karate school. In June 1964, the couple had their first child, Denise, followed by Deborah seventeen months later. Desiring to raise their daughters in a more traditional setting, Anna Mae and Jake moved to New Brunswick, Canada, where

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou

they formally married at Richibucto and settled on the Mi’kmac reserve. In 1969, the couple’s marriage ended, and Anna Mae returned to her job at the sewing factory. She also did volunteer work at the Boston Indian Council, an organization she helped to create. Among other things, the council strove to help the city’s Indian population avoid alcohol abuse, a problem with which Anna Mae, too, struggled in the aftermath of her marital difficulties. In 1970, Anna Mae heard about the American Indian Movement’s planned national day of Indian mourning at the 350th anniversary celebration of the arrival of the Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Choosing to participate in the protest that November, her interest in Indian activism was piqued as she listened enthusiastically to Russell Means’s oratory. Anna quit her job at Elvin Selow and moved to Bar Harbor, Maine, where she taught in the Teaching and Research in Bicultural Education School Project (TRIBES) until its funding expired. In 1971, she returned with her daughters to Boston and entered the New Careers program at Wheelock College. Anna Mae began teaching at the experimental Ruggles Street Day Care in the district of Roxbury, a predominantly black community in the city. Offered a scholarship to Brandeis University, she chose instead to continue her work with urban Indians and helped initiate the Boston Indian Council’s job placement program with the General Motors plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. During this period in Boston, Anna Mae met and established a relationship with Nogeeshik Aquash, an Ojibwa artist from Walpole Island in Ontario, Canada. The two traveled to Washington, D.C., with members of the Boston Indian Council to participate in the final stage of the Trail of Broken Treaties. In March 1973, she and Nogeeshik left for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to help the besieged Indian activists at Wounded Knee. There, Anna Mae smuggled supplies past the government roadblocks at night and aided in the construction of protective bunkers for the beleaguered Indians. On April 12, Wallace Black Elk married Anna Mae and Nogeeshik in a traditional Lakota ceremony. Thirteen days later, the Aquashes were detained and released by the FBI as they attempted to leave Wounded Knee. Returning first to Boston in an unsuccessful attempt to start an AIM survival school in the city, the couple then moved to Ontario to set up a display of Indian art and culture at the National Arts Centre. The exhibit spawned an inter-

www.abc-clio.com

743

est in traditional Mi’kmaq ribbon shirts, and Anna Mae foresaw the sale of these colorful shirts as a fund-raising enterprise for AIM. With the conclusion of her exhibit in May 1974, Anna Mae, now separated from her husband, moved to the Twin Cities of Minnesota, where she made ribbon shirts and worked for the Red School House, the AIM survival school in St. Paul, and for AIM’s central office in Minneapolis. There, Anna Mae became closely associated with Dennis Banks and soon became a national AIM leader. In the fall, she traveled to Los Angeles to help establish an AIM office on the West Coast. In January 1975, along with two fellow workers from the Los Angeles office, Dino Butler and his future wife, Nilak (Kelly Jean McCormick), Anna Mae journeyed to Gresham, Wisconsin, to aid the Menominee Warrior Society in their short-lived takeover of an unused abbey (the society hoped to convert the building into an Indian health center). After leaving Gresham, she organized a benefit concert in St. Paul for AIM survival schools before moving briefly to Rosebud, South Dakota, and then to Oglala on the Pine Ridge Reservation near Tent City, the AIM encampment on the property of the Jumping Bull family. AIM members were there in reaction to growing tensions on the reservation between tribal chairman Dick Wilson and Lakota traditionalists. Anna Mae became involved in community work with local women and began to develop plans for a comprehensive cultural history of the Indian peoples of North America. In early June 1975, Anna Mae accompanied her compatriots at Tent City to the annual AIM convention in Farmington, New Mexico. Upon their return to Pine Ridge, on June 26 the activists were involved in a shoot-out on the Jumping Bull property with two FBI agents. Both agents died, along with one member of AIM. The reservation immediately became the focus of a massive manhunt as the FBI attempted to apprehend the individuals responsible for the death of their agents. As far as the government was concerned, Anna Mae’s presence implicated her as either a suspect or a witness. Finally located on the Rosebud Reservation at the home of AIM’s spiritual leader, Leonard Crow Dog, on September 5 she was charged with unlawful possession of explosives and firearms and taken to Pierre, South Dakota. Released on bond, Anna Mae chose to flee rather than stay and face trial. Recaptured by the FBI on November 14 on the Port Madison Reservation in Washington, she returned to South Dakota to stand trial on the Rosebud charges. Released again prior to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

744

Aupaumut, Hendrick

the day of her trial, Anna Mae left her Pierre motel room on the evening of November 24 and went into hiding in Colorado. On February 24, 1976, a rancher discovered Anna Mae’s decomposed and frozen body in a ravine near Wanblee, South Dakota. Unable to identify the body, the pathologist removed her hands for possible later identification and ruled that exposure was the cause of death. On March 3, “Jane Doe” was buried in the cemetery at the Holy Rosary Mission (Red Cloud Indian School) at Pine Ridge. That same day, the FBI lab identified the severed hands as belonging to Anna Mae Aquash. Her family asked for a second autopsy and had the body exhumed on March 10. An independent pathologist discovered that she had been murdered—shot in the back of the head at close range with a .32-caliber weapon. Four days later, her body was reburied at the Wallace Little Ranch in Oglala, where it remained for twentyeight years. On June 21, 2004, Anna Mae’s family returned her remains to the Mi’kmaq reserve in Nova Scotia. What happened to Anna Mae following her November 24 flight from Pierre until her death in December 1975 (or possibly early January 1976) is conjecture. There is compelling evidence that she fled to Denver and was there kidnapped and taken to South Dakota by some members of AIM who falsely suspected her of being an FBI informant. She was subsequently killed, according to this theory, to rid the organization of a government spy. Although approached several times in the past by the FBI in hopes of employing her services, Anna Mae openly denied any allegations that she was on the FBI’s payroll. The FBI also stated that there was no truth to the assertions. Other members of AIM believed she was killed by a faction of the organization who thought that she could identify those responsible for the June 26 deaths of the two FBI agents on the Jumping Bull property. Although efforts continue to bring Anna Mae’s killers to justice, the case remains unresolved. On March 20, 2003, Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud and John Graham were indicted for the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. Their cases continue at this date. Alan C. Downs See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, Dennis; Bellecourt, Clyde. References and Further Reading Brand, Joanna. 1993. The Life and Death of Anna Mae Aquash. Toronto: James Lorimer.

www.abc-clio.com

Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. Matthiessen, Peter. 1991. In the Spirit of Crazy Horse. New York: Penguin Books. Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.

Aupaumut, Hendrick (c. 1757–1830) Hendrick Aupaumut was a Mahican chief who became a significant cultural broker between the United States and Indians of the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region. A resident of the blended Indian village of Stockbridge in Western Massachusetts, Hendrick Aupaumut was educated under the tutelage of John Sargeant, a Congregational minister appointed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. With other Stockbridge Indians, he joined the colonists at war with England. In June 1775, he volunteered for William Goodrich’s company and was assigned to the regiment of Colonel John Patterson. Thus, he was likely present when Patterson’s men fortified the redoubt on Prospect Hill, protecting Cambridge Road from British incursion during the battle of Bunker Hill. Aupaumut later enlisted with approximately thirty Stockbridge Indians in the service of Captain Abraham Nimham’s company of Indians and fought at the battle of White Plains. George Washington rewarded Apaumat’s service to the fledgling nation with a commission of captain. His most significant contribution to U.S.-Indian relations was his role as informal ambassador to western tribes for the United States. Designs of the nascent government to use him in such a capacity were broached as early as 1781, when Colonel Daniel Broadhead, the commanding office at Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh), asked Samuel Huntington, president of the Continental Congress, to encourage the Native peoples still on the American side to come to Fort Pitt and speak to the tribes there. Aupaumut’s first journey west was at the behest of secretary of war General Henry Knox in 1792 following St. Clair’s defeat the previous fall. Aupaumut viewed his mediation in tribal relations in keeping with his people’s traditional role and their kinship ties to many western tribes. His journey, however, was fraught with difficulties. The Miami

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Bagot Commission (Canada)

and Delaware leaders with whom he met were determined by their military victories over Generals Josiah Harmar and Arthur St. Clair to resist further encroachments by American settlers on their land. They accused Aupaumut of being a spy for the United States. Aupaumut also fell ill during the trip and was unable to rendezvous at the appointed hour with General Rufus Putnam at Fort Jefferson. Putnam assumed the worst and reported that Aupaumut’s negotiations had failed and that the Stockbridge sachem was probably dead. Though very much alive, Aupaumut’s reputation as a mediator was at stake. Upon hearing continued rumors that the U.S. government was displeased with his efforts, Aupaumut prepared a full account of his actions in a report nearly seventy pages long. This document is a rare Native perspective on negotiations with tribes from the Ohio Valley. Aupaumut accompanied U.S. commissioners the following year and interpreted their speech to the Delaware. When the talks failed over boundary issues between Indian and American territory (the western Indians insisted on the Ohio River), and Anthony Wayne was ordered to engage the Indians, Aupaumut served as his negotiator and interpreter. That same year, Aupaumut helped negotiate three separate treaties between the United States and the Seneca Nation, the Oneida, Tuscorora, and Stockbridge Nations, and the collective Six Nations. Before the War of 1812, Aupaumut met again with the western tribes, hoping to persuade them to turn away from Tecumseh and his dream of a pan-Indian alliance against the United States. Aupaumut had his own plans for a pan-Indian community, but he failed in his efforts to secure land along the White River in Indiana for the Stockbridge and other Christian Indians. Aupaumut’s reputation as negotiator remained strong, however. Jedidiah Morse, who served as government agent for the Indian Office, sought out the Stockbridge leader to accompany him on yet another round of Indian removal negotiations. But Aupaumut stayed in New Stockbridge in western New York to help his own tribe find a better home. He eventually represented his Stockbridge band of Mahican Indians in successful negotiations for Menominee Indian land in the Wisconsin Territory, where he died in 1830. Hendrick Aupaumut’s extensive writings provide a rare window on the complex intertribal relationships in the early decades of the American republic and highlight the difficulties of Native Americans who sought the middle ground between peoples of diverse cultures and agendas. John Savagian

www.abc-clio.com

745

See also Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania; St. Clair, Arthur; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778; Wayne, Anthony. References and Further Reading Aupaumut, Hendrick. 1827. “A Short Narration of My Last Journey to the Western Country,” Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, vol. 2 (23 October 1827): 61–131. Rhonda, Jeanne, and James P. Ronda. 1979. “‘As They Were Faithful’: Chief Hendrick Aupaumut and the Struggle for Stockbridge Survival, 1757–1830.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 33: 43–55. Taylor, Alan. 1996. “Captain Hendrick Aupaumut: The Dilemmas of an Intercultural Broker.” Ethnohistory 43: 431–457.

Bagot Commission (Canada) The Bagot Commission, launched in 1842 by British North American governor general Sir Charles Bagot, was a comprehensive investigation of Indian affairs in Canada East and Canada West. As such it established the fundamental elements of colonial policy that guided Indian affairs for more than a century (Leslie 1982, 31; Miller 2000, 132). Canada West’s civil secretary, Rawson W. Rawson, former Crown lands commissioner John Davidson, and registrar of the court of chancery William Hepburn served as commissioners. Released in 1844, the final report contained one hundred appendices listing Indian populations, expenditures, department accounts, testimony, and proceedings of Indian councils. The report concluded that the Indians in both Canadas faced similar problems: squatters, land loss, intemperance, lack of progress in education and agriculture, and poor accounting of band funds. Indians’ right of occupancy, their right to compensation for surrendered lands, protection of reserve boundaries, and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 were recognized as important policy planks. Reforms were proposed that would improve education and lead to the elimination of Native land use patterns as well as establish the government’s financial, political, legal, and moral obligations while promoting assimilation through civilization (Leslie 1982, 31, 38–39). As Indian acceptance or cooperation was not required to reform the Indian Department, it was the first to be reorganized. Offices were moved from Kingston to Montreal, a chief clerk was placed in charge of all records, the chief superintendent became an advisory position to the governor

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

746

Banks, Dennis

general, resident superintendents now corresponded directly with the civil secretary, and three positions known as Indian Visitors were created—two in Canada West and one in Canada East (Leslie 1982, 48–49). Accounting practices would also be reformed to give Indian leaders a proper accounting of their funds and to protect the government from accusations of fraud or mismanagement. Recommendations were also made concerning Indian land, its surrender, and its administration. The report acknowledged the Indians’ right of occupancy and right to compensation for land surrenders as outlined in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Once the land had been surrendered and reserves surveyed, the government encouraged individual ownership of land rather than collective ownership. Despite Native resistance, this idea influenced Canadian Indian policy for generations. As a result of the commission, a census of the Indian population of Canada West and Canada East would be undertaken. Presents or gifts, which previously had been distributed to all Indians, would be distributed only to those listed on the census. Also, individuals deemed sufficiently educated would be refused presents. Natives, who viewed the annual distributions as an important symbol of their continuing relationship with the British Crown, strenuously resisted the stoppage of presents. Nonetheless, by the end of the 1850s present distribution had ceased. The commissioners also recognized that education was vital for Native survival and civilization. The report claimed that day schools plagued with poor attendance and parental influence hindered children’s education. It proposed that £3000 be set aside to establish four Indian boarding schools with attached farms. The schools would instruct children in farming, animal husbandry, mechanical trades, and domestic economy. All crops and animals raised on the farm would be used to reduce the operating expenses of the schools. Finally, the commission endorsed the idea that all religious denominations should receive support and cooperation from the Indian Department in implementing all educational policy. Initially, Indians cooperated with and supported the boarding schools; however, they never accepted the assimilationist intent behind the policy (Leslie 1982, 40–41; Miller 2000, 133–135). Two land acts—“An Act for the Better Protection of the Indians of Upper Canada [West] from Imposition, and the Property Enjoyed by them from Trespass and Injury, 1850” and “An Act for the Better

www.abc-clio.com

Protection of the Lands and Property of the Indians of Lower Canada [East], 1851”—drew on recommendations of the Bagot Commission. In Canada East, a commissioner was placed in charge of Indian lands who held the power to lease or sell while protecting Indian interests. The act of 1851 also created the first legal definition of the term Indian, which largely reflected the Bagot Commission’s recommendations. Although the act of 1850 did not include a definition of Indian, it enacted strict laws relating to trespass and resource use. It also appointed Indian superintendents and Crown lands officials as justices of the peace to enforce the new law (Dickason 2002, 228–229; Leslie 1982, 51). Additionally, these laws made it illegal for Indians to pawn goods for liquor and exempted Indians from property taxes on reserves, as well as from the seizure of property in lieu of debts unless an Indian owned £25 or more in fee-simple land. Thus, five years after the Bagot Commission’s report, the essential elements of Indian legislation were in place that eventually formed the first federal Indian Act in 1871 (Leslie 1982, 51; Miller 2000, 132–133; and Dickason 2002, 228–231). Karl S. Hele See also Royal Proclamation of 1763. References and Further Reading Canada. “Report on the Affairs of the Indians of Canada.” 1844–1845. App. EEE. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. [Appendix is not paginated]. Canada. “Report on the Affairs of the Indians of Canada.” 1847. App. T. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. [Appendix is not paginated]. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 2002. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Leslie, John. 1982. “The Bagot Commission Developing a Corporate Memory for the Indian Department.” Historical Papers/Communications historiques, 31–52. Miller, J. R. 2000. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Banks, Dennis (1937–) Dennis Banks, an Anishinabe born on Leach Lake Reservation in northern Minnesota, cofounded the American Indian Movement (AIM) with Clyde Bellecourt and George Mitchell in 1968. AIM’s goals

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Banks, Dennis

Dennis Banks (1937–) an Anishinabe from Leeck Lake Reservation in northern Minnesota, was a co-founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in 1968 in Minneapolis. (Bettmann/Corbis)

were to initiate lawsuits to protect Native rights guaranteed in treaties, sovereignties, laws, and the U.S. Constitution. In 1970, the organization created a court advocacy program, persuaded the National Convention of Churches to provide more funding for their Indian programs, established an Indian school system, and eliminated some racist textbooks. To elevate national awareness of AIM’s goals, Banks and his constituents also interrupted a Plymouth, Massachusetts, Thanksgiving celebration and a Jesuit pageant honoring Christianity in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. With AIM chapters in forty-three states, Banks orchestrated protests to bring Indian priorities to the attention of the media. In 1972, he led the takeover of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building in Washington, D.C. The protest, known as the Trail of Broken Treaties, began in San Francisco as a caravan traveling to the nation’s capital to meet with congressional leaders. When government representatives refused to meet with the group, the protestors occupied the BIA building for eight days. Following his plan to bring Indian issues to national consciousness, Banks supplied the media with BIA records

www.abc-clio.com

747

that contained information about questionable management practices. President Richard Nixon finally agreed to hear the group’s Twenty Points solution paper and gave them $66,000 to return to their homes. Not everyone celebrated Banks’s role in elevating Indian priorities. When he and other demonstrators went to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to celebrate their BIA victory, tribal chair Richard Wilson removed Banks from the reservation. The controversy surrounding Banks’s activities escalated in 1973, when a white man killed Wesley Bad Heart Bull. During the protest against the judicial system, the Custer, South Dakota, courthouse burned to the ground. Shortly thereafter, Banks and Russell Means led the occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, based on land claims in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. Protesting the 1890 massacre of 150 unarmed Sioux, Banks and his associates demanded the resignation of Richard Wilson and a Senate investigation of four hundred broken treaties and of BIA management practices. The standoff ended on May 8, after seventy-one days of national press coverage. However, Banks left Wounded Knee the night of May 7 and went to the Northwest Territories in Canada to avoid arrest. He and Means faced trial in 1974 for their activities at Wounded Knee. Judge Alfred Nichol eventually dismissed all charges. Shortly thereafter, Banks was again a defendant, this time for charges based on the Custer courthouse incident. Avoiding prison under California Governor Jerry Brown’s protection until 1983, Banks continued to organize protests and rallies such as the Great Jim Thorpe Longest Walk, a spiritual run from New York to Los Angeles. He also served as the first American Indian chancellor at an Indian-controlled institution, Deganawida Quetzecoatl (DQ) University. In 1985, he surrendered to South Dakota authorities and served eighteen months in prison. He currently directs the Sacred Run Foundation, which sponsors international running and cultural events. His recent autobiography, Ojibwa Warrior, was published in 2004. Banks has actively reshaped his image from one of militancy to gentle concern and continues to bring public awareness to Native American issues. Clara Keyt See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Bellecourt, Clyde; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Means, Russell; Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

748

Barboncito

References and Further Reading Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cheatham, Kae. 1997. Dennis Banks: Native American Activist. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.

Barboncito (1820–1871) Barboncito was born in 1820 in lower Canyon de Chelly in present-day Arizona to a woman of the Ma’iidesgizhnii (Coyote Pass or Jemez clan) and an unknown father. His warrior name was Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod, “He Ran Down Toward the Enemy in Anger.” Like other Diné or Navajo headmen, he was versed in ceremonies such as the Blessingway and the Enemyway. He is perhaps best known by the name given to him by the Mexicans, Barboncito. Extant references to other Navajo leaders with similar names, including Barbon and El Barbon, make the identity of some leaders uncertain. However, Barboncito had become known as a prominent headman by the 1850s. Today, Navajos remember their leader as a man who used his knowledge and skill as a warrior on behalf of his people, for his oratorical power was a significant factor in the Americans’ decision to allow the Navajo people to return to their homeland in 1868. After the Navajos’ return to their homeland, Barboncito remained a leader who served until his death in 1871. During Barboncito’s lifetime, the Diné (the People, or Navajo) faced American expansion, which began in 1846. Although white settlers coming West and seeking land became a problem eventually faced by the Diné, the major reason for cycles of conflict and peace between Navajos and New Mexican settlers was slave raiding, the targets of which were Navajo women and children. Reports of valuable natural resources in Navajo country also began to circulate. Barboncito participated in the resistance when the American military laid claim to Navajo land and then with Navajo defeat in 1863, and journeyed with his people to the Bosque Redondo prison in southeastern New Mexico, where he encouraged his people to keep their courage and faith. In 1851, the American military established a fort in the heart of Navajo country. This post was a site first of contention and then of war between the

www.abc-clio.com

Navajos and the U.S. military as Navajos pressed their claims to the land. In 1860, after a series of clashes with the soldiers, Navajo warriors led by Manuelito and Barboncito attacked the fort at dawn. Although one thousand warriors attacked the fort, they were unable to take it, largely because of superior U.S. firepower. The conflicts between the Navajos, and the New Mexican settlers continued almost unabated. In the fall of 1862, Brigadier General James H. Carleton assumed command of the Department of New Mexico. Carleton, following established U.S. policy for dealing with Native peoples, conceived a plan to remove Indians that were considered a threat to white interests, which included mining and settlement. Mescalero Apaches and Navajos were to be removed and relocated from their homelands to Bosque Redondo, a reservation near Fort Sumner, New Mexico. There, they would be subjected to assimilation policies. In 1863, under Carleton’s orders, Kit Carson waged a war against the entire Navajo Nation. The People retreated before Carson’s men, who burned their hogans, destroyed cornfields and peach trees, and slaughtered livestock. Leaders such as Barboncito protected their people as best as they could during this suffering. Eventually, as the burn-andscorch campaign continued, destitute and starving Diné began to surrender at the American forts. By the end of 1864, thousands of Navajos were forced to walk from their beloved homeland to Bosque Redondo, near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, a journey of more than three hundred miles, where they were to begin new lives. A peace leader, Barboncito was one of the first to surrender and take his people to the prison camp. He found the living conditions deplorable and escaped twice, but if conditions at the prison camp were impossible, Navajos in their homeland faced constant harassment and deprivation in their homeland. The Diné endured nightmarish conditions at the prison camp. Attempts to farm failed as drought conditions prevailed and cutworms destroyed cornfields. They lived in holes dug into the ground. Forced to walk as far as twenty miles in search of firewood, Navajo women and children were easy prey for raiders who waited for them. They were constantly hungry and cold. After four years, from 1864 to 1868, Carleton’s “experiment” was acknowledged a failure. Because the U.S. government was no longer willing to pay for the upkeep of Navajos at Bosque Redondo, mili-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Bearskin, Leaford

tary officials considered another plan for assimilating the Navajos. In the spring of 1868, Navajo leaders met with U.S. officials to discuss conditions at the reservation and to consider alternatives. For the Navajos, the opportunity to return home seemed a strong possibility, even though military leaders were considering sending them to Indian Territory. Talking among themselves, the Diné selected Barboncito to present their case to the Americans. Barboncito, already known as an eloquent and persuasive speaker, would once again prove effective as he presented the Navajo case for return to their homeland. Meeting with Samuel F. Tappan, who had served with the Colorado Volunteers, and William Tecumseh Sherman, a general who had waged a successful campaign against the Confederates during the Civil War, the Navajos, led by Barboncito, negotiated for two days. Sherman asked why the Navajos had not prospered at the reservation. Barboncito explained that life had been harsh at Bosque Redondo. He declared that Navajos already had a home, that they should not live outside of the four sacred mountains. With many issues discussed during these negotiations—including land, Navajo slavery, and assimilation of Navajos into the American mainstream— the leaders eventually came to an agreement. For the Diné, the negotiations were successful because they were to return to their homeland, albeit a decidedly smaller land base than what they had previously claimed. Finally, the U.S. officials capitulated to Navajo pleas. On June 1, 1868, the Navajo leaders and U.S. representatives signed the treaty. Although the agreement later would be ratified by Congress and then signed by the president of the United States, the Navajos began their journey home on June 18. Coming generations of Navajos would remember their ancestors’ ordeal and the roles that leaders such as Barboncito played to ensure the survival of the People. Through stories passed down through the generations, the Navajo people are reminded of the power of the human spirit to overcome incredible obstacles. After the Navajo return to Dinétah, Barboncito remained an important leader recognized by both Navajos and U.S. officials. Because the Navajo population was always too large for the diminished land base, it soon spilled into regions designated as public domain. The Navajos’ use of the lands for grazing was contested by white settlers, including Mormons, on the northwestern boundaries of

www.abc-clio.com

749

Navajo land; in the ensuing disputes, both Navajos and whites were killed. Barboncito worked to quell the disturbances and to keep the peace between Navajos and whites. Today, Barboncito is remembered as an important peace leader of the Navajos who proved courageous and faithful when war was inevitable. His ability to speak eloquently and powerfully served the purpose of bringing the People back to their sacred homeland. Jennifer Nez Denetdale See also Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Manuelito; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868. References and Further Reading Bailey, Lynn R. 1964. The Long Walk: A History of the Navajo Wars, 1846–1868. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. Dunlay, Tom. 2000. Kit Carson and the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Roessel, Ruth, and Broderick H. Johnson, eds. 1973. Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo Community College Press.

Bearskin, Leaford (1921–) In 1983, Leaford Bearskin was elected chief of the Wyandotte Nation, known since the 1500s in American history as part of the Hurons as well as the Keepers of the Council Fire for the Old Northwest (Delaware) Confederacy. In this capacity, he led the Wyandotte into the twenty-first century after a long career as a military officer and civilian employee of the U.S. Air Force. Among his accomplishments as chief, Bearskin helped the tribe achieve economic self-sufficiency with several business ventures that have benefited both the tribe and local communities. Through his leadership, the Wyandotte have enhanced health care, education, nutrition services, employment opportunities, and emergency services for tribal members. Magnified by his history as a bomber pilot in World War II, an airlift squadron commander during the Berlin Blockade of 1948, and an air base group commander, Bearskin also initiated several Veterans’ Day events in northeastern Oklahoma and established a Wyandotte Color Guard to represent the tribe at nationwide events. Bearskin was born in a log cabin on a hundred and forty acres of allotment land along Sycamore Creek in the hills northeast of Wyandotte, Okla-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

750

Bellecourt, Clyde

homa, where he attended public school. The family lost the land after his older brother was stricken with polio. Bearskin’s parents borrowed money from the local bank to get medication. Subsequently, a land speculator came through town and bought several mortgages from the bank, including the Bearskins’, and then foreclosed on them. After graduating from high school, Bearskin wanted to attend college, but he lacked the financial means to do so. Because he also harbored a secret desire to fly an airplane, Bearskin joined the Army Air Corps in 1941. Assigned to an air base in Alaska when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Bearskin applied for flight school when the corps revised the minimum requirements for pilot training to a high school diploma. Thus began a highly distinguished career in which Bearskin was awarded such military honors as the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Asiatic Campaign Medal (with four major battle stars), the National Defense Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, and the Air Force Longevity Service Award (with three bronze oak-leaf clusters). After numerous outstanding efficiency ratings and many commendations, Bearskin retired from the Air Force in 1960. Following his retirement, Bearskin spent another twenty years working for the air force as a civil servant in the areas of missile weapons systems, logistics, and headquarters operations. Beginning with his election as chief in 1983, Bearskin has made voluminous contributions to the Wyandotte Nation and the surrounding communities of northeastern Oklahoma. Bearskin rewrote the tribal constitution, obtained a grant for the tribe’s first economic development project (the Wyandotte convenience store complex), and returned the Wyandotte Nation offices to tribal land. He also led a $5.7million settlement of Wyandotte land claims in Ohio with the U.S. government. Additional tribal programs Bearskin instituted include a senior citizens’ nutrition program, a food delivery program to local shut-ins, the construction of a tribal social activities center, the creation of a tribal library, and the establishment of a health clinic also available to nonIndian members of the community on a space-available basis. Educationally, the Wyandotte Turtle Tots preschool was recognized as the best preschool in the United States in 1995 and 1996 by the U.S. Department of Education. Also impacting communities nearby, such as Wyandotte, Fairland, and Miami, Oklahoma, Bear-

www.abc-clio.com

skin oversaw the creation of a cemetery for anyone in the area, Indian or non-Indian, who needed a place to be buried. Under his watch, the Wyandotte Nation also significantly enhanced local public services. The tribe helped the City of Wyandotte create twenty-four-hour law enforcement, which helped reduce crime in the area. The tribe also supports the city’s fire department, emergency medical services, and flood management control, and it supervises and funds several regional transportation projects, building or improving roads and bridges to benefit the whole of Ottawa County. Chief Bearskin also ensured that the tribe’s wellness center is available to the entire community. Nationally, Bearskin oversaw the tribe’s purchase of six technical schools across the United States that teach highly employable vocational subjects such as court reporting, medical records maintenance, and other skills. Chief Bearskin instigated the establishment of the Wyandotte Cultural Center, and he directed a cultural committee to revive an annual powwow that had not taken place since the early 1960s. Since its rebeginning in 1991, the annual intertribal event draws as many as four thousand people to the Wyandotte Nation in early September and has a dramatic impact on the service-oriented businesses of the area. Chief Bearskin also instituted a Wyandotte language program that is ongoing; throughout his career, he has traveled extensively, speaking about the Wyandottes, their lifeways and concerns. In 2005, Bearskin led the Wyandotte Nation in establishing a gaming complex in Wyandotte County, Kansas. Hugh W. Foley, Jr. See also Allotment; Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988. References and Further Reading Bearskin, Leaford. 1998. Interview by author, October 18. Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma. “Chief Leaford Bearskin.” Accessed May 24, 2005, at http://www.wyandotte-nation.org.

Bellecourt, Clyde (1936–) Along with Dennis Banks, George Mitchell, and Edward Benton Banai, Clyde Bellecourt was one of the founding members of the American Indian Movement (AIM). He rose to fame for his leadership

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Bellecourt, Clyde

751

Clyde Bellecourt (1936–), an Ojibwa of White Earth Indian Reservation in northern Minnesota, was one of the founding members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in 1968. (Bettmann/Corbis)

in the 1972 cross-country trek known as the Trail of Broken Treaties, which culminated in the takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building in Washington, D.C. Bellecourt was one of the most outspoken and adamant proponents of Indian sovereignty and rights in the late twentieth century. The son of a World War I veteran, Bellecourt was born on May 8, 1936, on the White Earth Ojibway Indian Reservation in Minnesota. He and his eleven siblings grew up in a cramped, governmentbuilt home and subsisted on their father’s meager disability checks. Young Clyde was educated at a local Benedictine missionary school but often found himself in trouble with his teachers. Eventually, he was shipped off to a reform school in the city of Red Wing. When he was sixteen, Clyde and his family moved to Minneapolis as part of the BIA’s new relocation program. The move to the big city led only to further problems with the law. Through the 1960s, Bellecourt was in and out of jail for burglary and robbery. In 1966, while serving a two-to-fifteen-year sentence in the state penitentiary at Stillwater, he met Edward

www.abc-clio.com

Benton Banai, who encouraged Bellecourt to embrace Ojibway culture and spirituality. The two teamed up with fellow convict Dennis Banks and began to discuss how they could advocate Indian rights. Their ultimate solution was the formation of the Indian Patrol in 1968. Freshly released from prison, they took a page from the Black Panthers and began monitoring police brutality of Native peoples in the Twin Cities. Eventually, the Indian Patrol evolved into the American Indian Movement as the organization began to expand its activities. As AIM’s first chairman, Bellecourt targeted negative stereotypes of Indians in the media and in schools, advocated sovereignty, and called for a return to Native values, customs, and spiritual beliefs. After the occupation of Alcatraz in 1969–1971, AIM adopted the takeover tactic as the best way to get its message across. Accordingly, Bellecourt, along with Banks, Russell Means, Hank Adams, and several others, decided to occupy the BIA building after the Trail of Broken Treaties. Renaming the building the Native American Embassy, AIM insisted that the federal govern-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

752

Black Hawk

ment recognize Indian sovereignty, respect its treaties, protect Indian religious freedom, restore terminated tribes, and replace the BIA with an “Office of Federal Indian Relations.” Though Bellecourt and his organization did not succeed in obtaining their main demands, they did get widespread media attention. The takeover of the BIA was followed by several other occupations in the 1970s, most notably Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. In the 1980s, Bellecourt helped establish the International Indian Treaty Council, as AIM became increasingly involved in issues facing indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. Much of the new organization’s attention was focused on the civil war in Nicaragua, where the Marxist Sandinistas battled the right-wing Contras. The conflict, however, caused a fracture in AIM’s leadership. Bellecourt favored the Sandinistas, whereas Russell Means supported the Native Miskito people, who were allied with the Contras. By 1993, AIM had split into two organizations—Bellecourt’s National American Indian Movement and Means’s International Autonomous Confederation of the American Indian Movement. Nevertheless, in 1999, the two leaders were able to put their differences aside and join together to protest the murder of two Indians in White Clay, Nebraska. Bellecourt has continued to work for Indian rights in the twenty-first century. He and his brother Vernon are active in the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media as well as numerous other causes. In 2005, Heart of the Earth, Inc., established in Clyde’s name a $60,000 scholarship for Indian youth. Upon completing their degrees, recipients of the scholarship are to return to their reservations to teach Indian languages, culture, and history. The scholarship provides an excellent opportunity for young high school graduates while also putting into practice what Bellecourt has advocated since those long, dark days in Stillwater prison. Bradley Shreve See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, Dennis; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973. References and Further Reading Caldwell, E. K. 1999. Dreaming the Dawn: Conversations with Native Artists and Activists. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. 1988. Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Boston: South End Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne, eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson, eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight for Freedom. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Warrior, Robert Allen, and Paul Chaat Smith. 1996. Like A Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.

Black Hawk (1767–1838) Black Hawk, also known as Makataimeshekiakiak, was born a few years after the Sauk and Fox tribes moved down from the Wisconsin River to Illinois country to establish Saukenuk on the Rock River where it led into the Mississippi (present-day Rock Island, Illinois). Black Hawk grew to manhood following the valor of his great grandfather and father and often demonstrated his courageous drive to keep his nation on tribal land. Descended from the first chief, Nanamakee or Thunder, Black Hawk led and returned from battles and wars with proofs of his courage as a war leader. When his father, a medicine man of the Sauk, died after a battle with the Cherokees, Black Hawk took the great medicine bag of the tribe, carrying the sacred continuity of the nation. He sought to ensure the continuation of the ways of his people despite the increasing encroachments of the United States through treaties. Though the Sauk (Sac) and Fox wished to be recognized by the United States as a nation through a treaty, the combined tribes believed they would be dealt with as they always had been by the British— that is, that they would be offered gifts but would not be required to cede land. The first of the American treaties, known as the Treaty of St. Louis with the Sauk [Sac] and Fox, which raised Black Hawk’s rancor, came about in November 1804 through a misunderstanding following the arrest and delivery of a young warrior for the murder of settlers in the Louisiana Territory. William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, was in St. Louis to reorganize the government of the territory following the Louisiana Purchase when he decided it would be an opportune time to treat with those few members of the Sac who were in St. Louis to deliver the young warrior. The Sacs asked for redress after offering to

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Black Hawk

Black Hawk (1767–1838) a Sauk, also known as Makataimeshekiakiak, was the war leader of the Black Hawk War of 1832 against U.S. expansion that consumed the tribal homeland of Saukenuk on the Rock River, near present-day Rock Island, Illinois. He died October 3, 1837, in Iowaville on the Des Moines River, Southeast Iowa. (Library of Congress)

turn over one of their own for the murders of the settlers. Willing to deal, Harrison tied land cession into the bargain of allowing the prisoner to go free pending a pardon from President Jefferson. Later, those who signed the treaty claimed they were misled and/or made to drink, to confirm what they had done: signed away their entire geographic boundaries from the Wisconsin River in the north to the Fox River (Illinois) on the east, down to the Illinois; from the west at the Gasconade on the Missouri to the Mississippi. For this cession of land, the Sac and Fox received $2,234.50 in goods and a $1,000 annuity, also in goods, to be divided between the Sac and Fox. When news of this agreement arrived at Saukenuk, Black Hawk refused to acknowledge the treaty, and over the next twenty-eight years, his disavowal sowed the seeds of his downfall. In the years leading up to the War of 1812, Black Hawk and his tribe continued to acknowledge the British as their white father and made raids against

www.abc-clio.com

753

the Osage. In 1808, the Americans came up the Mississippi to build Fort Madison above the Des Moines River; Black Hawk and his warriors intimidated the soldiers as they built their fort, taking the soldiers’ guns by stealth while they chopped timber for buildings and then giving them back. This did not endear Black Hawk to the Americans, nor did he desire it. When the war commenced, he sided with the British. In July 1814, on the Mississippi at Campbell’s Island above Saukenuk, Black Hawk and his warriors attacked U.S. gunboats under the command of Lieutenant John Campbell, who had been sent to the relief of Prairie du Chien. Following the end of the war, Black Hawk continued to raid white settlements and other Native nations. He refused to attend the treaty of 1815 at Portage des Sioux, which sought to end hostilities between the United States and tribes that had been on the side of the British. About this time, Black Hawk’s tribe earned the nickname “the British Band” for continued allegiance to the British. Not until May 1816 did Black Hawk finally come to the treaty table and “touch the quill” to make his mark with the Americans and to acknowledge the land cessions of the treaty of 1804. Over the ensuing years, Black Hawk’s power was usurped by a young, untried member of the tribe named Keokuk, who was made a war chief over Black Hawk. Keokuk, known for his oratorical skill, understood that the Americans were not going away, and he tried to make peace by accommodating them and giving up more land. As Black Hawk saw the land, including his own village, being signed over time and again in the treaties of 1819, 1824, 1825, and 1830, he grew angry and concerned about the future. Unable to bear the treaties’ requirement to relocate across the Mississippi from his beloved Saukenuk, Black Hawk undertook a most dangerous course. In late spring of 1832, with the support of a civil chief, Neapope, and the guidance of the Winnebago prophet Wabekieshiek, Black Hawk took his people back over to the east side. General Edmund P. Gaines arrived with regulars to demand that Black Hawk return. He warned the Native leader that refusal bore grave consequences. During the night, Black Hawk and his tribe left, but they did not return to the west side of the river. Rather, they began a trek, which brought about the battle that forever ended his career as a war leader. With reassurances from the prophet that the British would come to his aid and that other tribes would support him, Black Hawk moved into Wisconsin Territory seeking the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

754

Black Kettle

support he thought was a given. Trailing along with his half a thousand warriors and women, children, and the elderly, Black Hawk failed to find assistance; at the same time, he refused to turn back and cross over the Mississippi. Growing hungry, the warriors assaulted American settlers to the south, raiding stores, while the remaining band hid out. Along the Mississippi, north of where the Wisconsin River empties into it, the Sac were decimated as they pursued troops led by General Henry Atkinson and militia under Colonel Henry Dodge. Fewer than two hundred survived what is now known as the Battle of Bad Axe. Black Hawk was taken prisoner along with the others. Another treaty evolved in the later part of the summer of 1832; it strictly prohibited Black Hawk, his two sons, and other warriors of his band from taking leadership roles in the future. The rest of the surviving band was to be redistributed among the other bands of Sac and Fox to prevent them from ever rising up again. While yet a prisoner, Black Hawk was taken east with others of his band to be handed over to the War Department and to have a meeting with President Andrew Jackson, during which he had the opportunity to recount his side of the affair. After a tour of the capital, Black Hawk and his party were imprisoned for a short time at Fort Monroe, Virginia. Soon allowed to return home, the group stopped over in Philadelphia, where they became objects of entertainment for the citizens. Upon his return to the West, Black Hawk was turned over to Keokuk. Reunited with his wife and children, he lived a quiet life, although he made one more trip to Washington, in 1837. A newspaperman, J. P. Patterson, expressed interest in recording Black Hawk’s account of his life. It was later published as the Life of Makataimeshekiakiak or Black Hawk. Blackhawk died on October 3, 1838, following an illness. Sally Colford Bennett See also Chouteau, Auguste; Clark, William; Dodge, Henry; Forsyth, Thomas; Gaines, Edmund Pendleton; Harrison, William Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri; Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804. References and Further Readings Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jackson, Donald, ed. 1955. Black Hawk, an Autobiography. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

www.abc-clio.com

Kappler, Clarence J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Nichols, Roger L. 1992. Black Hawk and the Warrior’s Path. American Biographical History Series. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. Temple, Wayne C. 1987. Indian Villages of the Illinois Country. Vol. 2, part 2 of Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.

Black Kettle (1803/07–1868) The southern Cheyenne leader Black Kettle was the most noted peacemaker of the Cheyenne, well known for his effort to guide his people through the years of frontier conflict in the 1860s and to ensure a future of honor for them. Black Kettle embodied the code of conduct given to peace chiefs by Sweet Medicine, the Cheyenne cultural hero. Peace chiefs are to avoid any violence, even if they or their families are in imminent danger, but must always stand firm against opponents of their people. In Cheyenne, Black Kettle’s name was spelled in various documents as Moke-tav-a-to, Mo-ta-vato, Moke-ta-ve-to, Moke-to-ve-to, Moka-ta-va-tah, and Mo-ko-va-ot-o. He belonged to the Suthaio band. Although as a young man Black Kettle was a renowned war leader who fought the Kiowa, KiowaApache, Comanche, Ute, Delaware, and Pawnee, he never approved of war against European Americans. He became a principal Cheyenne chief in the 1850s. At that time, Cheyenne bands migrated over present-day Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas. In 1861, Black Kettle was the first to sign the Treaty of Fort Wise (Kansas) for his people. This treaty assigned them a small reservation in southeastern Colorado, encompassing Sand Creek. Black Kettle made every attempt to make peace with the United States, including journeys to Washington and Denver. He kept preventing his warriors from fighting the army even when the army began shooting them. In addition, Black Kettle secured the release of many European American captives by purchasing them at his own expense. In 1864, Black Kettle’s people were promised protection at Fort Lyon in Colorado, but after they had established their village at Sand Creek, they were massacred by troops under Colonel John Chiv-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy

ington on November 29. Black Kettle survived the massacre, and even though he fell into disgrace among his own people because he had led them into such a betrayal, he continued to counsel peace when the Cheyenne wanted to strike back. In 1865, Black Kettle attended the council on the Little Arkansas in Kansas that discussed compensation for the Sand Creek massacre. The treaty signed there assigned the Cheyenne, together with the Arapahoe, to an alternative reservation in the northern part of Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). In 1867, Black Kettle was invited by Colonel Jesse Leavenworth to represent the Cheyenne at another peace council, this time along with the Arapahoe, Comanche, Kiowa, and Plains Apache, that was to be held at Medicine Lodge Creek in southern Kansas. Because of the extensive European American intrusion into the Plains Nations’ land, which culminated during the Colorado gold rush of 1859, the uneasiness between American Indians and European Americans was mounting and being expressed through reprisals on each side. The proposed Medicine Lodge treaty was to be negotiated with the largest of the Southern Plains Indian nations and represented the last diplomatic effort of the United States to approach the land issue. The treaty marked the beginning of the reservation period for the Plains Indian nations. They were removed from their land, thus also from the pathways of commerce and settlement, and confined to reservations, where they would be assimilated. The Dog Soldiers, the militant Cheyenne band, did not want peace and unsuccessfully tried to prevent Black Kettle from attending the treaty councils. After Black Kettle arrived at the site, leaders of the Dog Soldiers named Tall Bull and Gray Head demanded that Black Kettle explain the importance of signing the treaty during the upcoming ceremonies of Sacred Arrows Renewal. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge stipulated that the Cheyenne give up all their land for a reservation in Indian Territory between the Arkansas and Cimarron rivers, where they were supposed to adopt the European American pattern of civilization. After Black Kettle signed, the Dog Soldiers chiefs joined in signing the Treaty of Medicine Lodge on October 28, 1867. The U.S. government was slow to meet the stipulations of the treaty that promised provisions to the Cheyenne living on their reservation, however. Young warriors thus grew increasingly restless and uncontrollable, joining the fighting parties on their raids. Following a trail left by one such party, the

www.abc-clio.com

755

Seventh Cavalry under Colonel George Custer attacked Black Kettle’s village, encamped at the Washita River. Together with many of his people (estimated at as many as twenty men and forty women and children), Black Kettle and his wife were killed at dawn on November 27, 1868. When the New York Times reported this massacre, it described Black Kettle, the greatest Cheyenne peace chief, as one of the most warlike characters of the plains. Antonie Dvorakova See also Assimilation; Chivington, John Milton; Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho– October 28, 1867. References and Further Reading Berthrong, Donald, J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Hoig, Stan. 1980. The Peace Chiefs of the Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: The Story of the Great Council as Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy (1951–) Throughout her political career with the government of Canada, Ethel Blondin-Andrew has served as a strong and representative voice for the views of aboriginal people living in northern Canada, bringing their concerns to national prominence. BlondinAndrew is an advocate for aboriginal people, youth, persons with disabilities, and the environment. Born on March 25, 1951 in Fort Norman (Tulita), Northwest Territories, Canada, Ethel BlondinAndrew is a Treaty Dene of the Dene Nation, and she is fluent in English and Dene-Slavey. Blondin-Andrew earned a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Alberta before returning to teach at the elementary school level in several communities in the Northwest Territories, including Tuktoyaktuk, Deline, and Fort Providence. She was one of the first accredited aboriginal teachers in northern Canada. She went on to work as an aboriginal language and curriculum specialist as well as a college instructor. Furthermore, she became acting director of the Public Service Commission of Canada, national manager of Indigenous Development Programs, and assistant deputy minister of culture and communications for the government of the Northwest Territories.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

756

Blount, William

On November 12, 1988, Blondin-Andrew became the first aboriginal woman to be elected to the House of Commons of the government of Canada as a member of Parliament for the Western Arctic. She is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada. Blondin-Andrew has since been reelected four times as member of Parliament, most recently on June 28, 2004. As a member of Parliament, Blondin-Andrew encouraged the House of Commons to pass a bill for the establishment of an aboriginal languages foundation, an organization that would facilitate the acquisition, preservation, enhancement, maintenance, retention, and use of First Nations languages across Canada. Although this was a laudable objective and was much needed by First Nations, the bill was defeated by a vote in the House of Commons. On November 4, 1993, Blondin-Andrew was named secretary of state (training and youth) and was, again, the first aboriginal woman to become a member of the Privy Council and the Cabinet. In 1997 she was named secretary of state (children and youth). In this position, Blondin-Andrew tackled some tough issues, including fetal alcohol syndrome, a problem that affects many First Nations communities. In addition, Blondin-Andrew was involved with the creation of the National Expert Advisory Committee on the Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well-Being. The government of Canada contributed $20 million over a period of five years for the development of the five existing centers, which bring together professors, scientists, and government officials to address issues affecting children across Canada (for example, early childhood development, child welfare, and children with special needs). Blondin-Andrew received an honorary doctorate from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, in June 2001 as an acknowledgement of her ongoing work and efforts for Canada’s aboriginal communities. In 2002, Blondin-Andrew received the Aboriginal Women in Leadership Distinction Award for her work in political leadership and children’s issues. Ethel Blondin-Andrew was named minister of state (northern development) for the government of Canada on July 20, 2004. As minister, BlondinAndrew has been supportive of the recent CanadaAboriginal Peoples Roundtable, which marked the beginning of a renewed dialogue between First Nations leaders from across the country and the Canadian government.

www.abc-clio.com

As a single mother of three children, a Dene woman from northern Canada, and a member of parliament with the government of Canada, Ethel Blondin-Andrew has had a unique opportunity to travel across the country and raise awareness about issues specific to northern Canada as well as First Nations issues in general. She has opened doors for other First Nations people who may want to have a career in politics with the government of Canada, and she brings a new perspective to the House of Commons. Lysane Cree See also Canada; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement–September 6, 1993. References and Further Reading Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen. Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton: Hurtig. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Blount, William (1749–1800) William Blount was one of the first United States superintendents of Indian affairs. Born into a distinguished family of merchant-planters in Bertie County, North Carolina, Blount grew up disparaging the rough-hewn, backcountry colonial settlers. Not surprisingly, Blount was an opponent of the Regulators, a loose organization of western populists seeking greater economic, political, and social parity with the eastern planters through election, tax, and judicial reforms. By May 1771, Regulator demands grew into physical confrontation, and Blount served in the loyalist militia that confronted and crushed a force of two thousand Regulators. These opposing groups eventually allied, though, when Britain reaffirmed protection of Indian lands, closing off western settlement, and the eastern seaboard planter elite resisted Britain’s attempts to reassert control over local affairs, handled by the colonial assembly for nearly a century. There was some reform after the Regulator movement, both groups having representation in the assembly. The increasing tension

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Blount, William

William Blount (1749–1800) of Windsor, North Carolina was a senator from Tennessee and served as one of the first U.S. Superintendents of Indian Affairs. He died in 1800, in Knoxville, Tennessee. (Buckner, Melton F., The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount, 1998.)

between that body and the royal governor led the colony to support the movement for independence from Britain. William Blount emerged as a powerful but moderate Revolutionary War leader. For three years, William Blount was involved in recruiting and provisioning forces to support George Washington’s army in the north and local military operations in the southern states, and in commanding a unit serving under General Horatio Gates, which engaged, and was defeated by, General Cornwallis at Camden, South Carolina. Blount was also a paymaster for North Carolina and issued vouchers to Tuscarora Indians in the revolutionary cause. After the war, Blount moved west to Rocky Mount, a cabin near present-day Johnson City, Tennessee. Blount served in North Carolina’s state assembly from 1780–1784 and 1788–1790, and was a North Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress from 1783–1784 and 1786–1787. William Blount also represented North Carolina in its dealings with the Cherokee.

www.abc-clio.com

757

In 1790, President Washington appointed Blount governor of the newly formed territory south of the Ohio River. It was during his tenure as territorial governor that Blount also served as superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern District. He negotiated the 1791 Treaty of Holston—also called the Blount Treaty—with the Cherokee Nation. More than twelve hundred Cherokee attended the negotiations, and forty-two tribal leaders signed the treaty, acknowledging Cherokee defeat in 1779 in support of the British during the Revolution. The Cherokee surrendered all claims to land lying east of the Clinch River and north of a line running through Kingston to the North Carolina border. The treaty redrew national boundaries and opened up significant land to American settlement. Blount also oversaw the organization of the territorial militia but cautioned against its deployment except in a purely defensive capacity to deal with nontreaty Indians. In 1795, Blount called a constitutional convention to organize part of the territory into a state, and Tennessee entered the Union the next year. Meanwhile, Blount’s speculation in western lands led him into financial difficulties, and he seems to have formed a tentative plan to conquer for Britain—not the United States—the Spanish provinces of Florida and Louisiana, using the combined warriors of the Cherokee and Creek Nations, frontier militias, and British naval forces. President Adams intercepted a letter Blount wrote alluding to the plan—thereafter called Blount’s Conspiracy— and turned it over to the Senate on July 3, 1797. Blount’s Conspiracy involved the corruption of two U.S. officials and would have breached Article V of the Treaty of San Lorenzo el Real (signed October 27, 1795) between the United States and Spain, by which each power agreed not to incite Indian nations to attack the other. The House of Representatives impeached Blount on July 7, 1797, and the Senate expelled him the following day for guilt of a “high misdemeanor” inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a senator. The House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment on January 17, 1798, but the Senate later decided that it had no jurisdiction, as Blount was no longer a member of the Senate and had never been a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. The case is significant because it was the first impeachment brought before the Senate. Britain disavowed the conspiracy, although evidence suggests its tacit approval. However, the rough-hewn, backcountry settlers wel-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

758

Boudinot, Elias

comed Blount back to Tennessee a hero, and he became the presiding officer of the state Senate. William Blount played an integral role in pushing the United States past the southern Appalachian range and propelling the nation ever westward through constant negotiation and renegotiation of treaties with Native nations. Blount died at Knoxville on March 21, 1800. C. S. Everett See also Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791. References and Further Reading Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Masterson, William. 1954. American National Biography; Dictionary of American Biography: William Blount. Repr., New York: Greenwood Press, 1969. Melton, Buckner F., Jr. 1998. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Boudinot, Elias (1800–1839) Coward and traitor, or realist and pragmatist? Elias Boudinot continues to be a controversial figure in Cherokee history. Born Gallegina (Buck) Watie in 1800, he was educated at the Moravian missionary school near his home in present-day Georgia, where he learned the new written Cherokee language that he would use to publish the tribe’s first bilingual newspaper. Boudinot was to become a respected Cherokee leader who supported his people’s relocation to present-day Oklahoma. Taking a position against Chief John Ross and the rest of the Cherokee tribe, he violated the tribal law forbidding anyone to sign treaties to cede Cherokee lands. While traveling to study at the American Board School in Connecticut, the young Buck Watie visited with two former presidents at their homes: Thomas Jefferson in Monticello and James Madison in Montpelier, Virginia. Watie’s most significant visit was to Burlington, New Jersey, where he met Dr. Elias Boudinot, a statesman, poet, and writer who would become his benefactor. Watie would adopt Boudinot’s name in appreciation of his financial support. The American Board sponsored an eastern states speaking tour by Boudinot (formerly Watie), during

www.abc-clio.com

which he solicited donations for a daily Cherokeelanguage newspaper as well as an academy and library. The bilingual Cherokee Phoenix was established in 1827 in New Echota, Georgia, with Boudinot as editor. The first edition was delivered on February 21, 1828. Missionary Samuel Worcester worked with Boudinot publishing Cherokeelanguage religious texts and hymns. Cherokee chief John Ross disagreed with the editorial position of the newspaper on the question of Indian removal, maintaining that relocation was not a viable solution to the land dispute between the Cherokee and the federal government. Despite Boudinot’s insistence on the freedom to print his viewpoint, he was forced to resign his editorship. Boudinot’s house was the meeting place for the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in December 1835. Nearly one hundred of the Cherokee signers felt that the U.S. federal government could not be stopped in its takeover of Cherokee-owned land. By agreeing to this treaty, they believed that they were guaranteeing a selection of quality land and repayment of moving expenses to present-day Oklahoma. Ironically, in 1829 both Boudinot and fellow Treaty Party leader John Ridge supported a law that called for the death penalty for releasing Cherokee land to white settlers. Rival party members used this law to justify the execution of Ridge and Boudinot, who were killed in 1839 by unidentified assailants in the new Cherokee Nation. Pamela Lee Gray

ABC-CLIO

See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge, Major; Ross, John; New Echota, Georgia; Watie, Stand; Trail of Tears; Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835; Worcester v. Georgia, 1831. References and Further Reading Gabriel, Ralph Henry. 1941. Elias Boudinot, Cherokee, and His America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Hoig, Stanley W. 1998. The Cherokees and Their Chiefs in the Wake of Empire. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. McLoughlin, William G. 1993. After the Trail of Tears: The Cherokees Struggle for Sovereignty, 1839–1880. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. New York: St. Martins Press. Sturm, Circe. 2002. Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.

1-800-368-6868

Brant, Joseph

759

Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1993. The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill and Wang.

Brant, Joseph (1742–1807) Joseph Brant is revered by many historians for his compliant acceptance of colonial society and the ability to effectively interact with government officials. Yet oral tradition and recent histories are less tolerant of Brant for the role he played in pursuing the profits associated with assimilating into colonial society, which necessitated the sale of Mohawk lands and his abandonment of traditional ways. Born in March 1742 on the banks of the Ohio River to Peter and Margaret, Brant, whose given name was Thayendanegea (“He Places Two Bets”), was the stepson of Brant Canagaraduncka, an influential Mohawk leader. Following Brant’s birth, his family returned to upstate New York, where his sister Molly met and married Sir William Johnson, the British superintendent of the northern Indians of Canada, in 1753. Brant later served in the French and Indian Wars under Johnson’s command and became a favorite of the British commander, who arranged for him to attend the Indian Charity School in Lebanon, Connecticut, where he learned to speak English while studying Western history. He left school after a year to work as a translator for the Anglican Missionary, and in 1765 he married Christine, the daughter of an Oneida chief, and had two children. He also worked as an interpreter for Johnson following Christine’s death from tuberculosis in 1771. In 1773, he married his wife’s sister Susannah, who also died of tuberculosis a few months later. In 1774, Brant was appointed secretary to Johnson’s successor, Guy Johnson.Brant quickly became the most reliable interpreter in the region, and he played an important role in Mohawk-British relations. A fierce British ally, in 1775 he was received by King George III, became a Freemason, and was appointed to the rank of captain. Many Native leaders were cautious about his allegiance to the Crown. Even so, he led four of the Six Nations for the British side during the Revolutionary War. When the war ended, however, the Mohawk territory was formally yielded to the United States, forcing the removal of Brant and his followers to the Grand River valley in Ontario, Canada.

www.abc-clio.com

Mohawk sachem Joseph Brant (1742–1807), also known as Thayendanega, was a significant native leader during the American Revolution. Brant allied himself with the British against the American colonists. He died in 1807 at his estate near Brantford, Ontario. (National Archives)

Cognizant of the Mohawk role in the war, in 1784 General Frederick Haldimand rewarded the Mohawks with a tract of land six miles on either side of the Grand River in Ontario, which amounted to 675,000 acres, in return for territory lost to the Americans in New York State. The Mohawks and Brant moved to the Grand River basin, where they made their settlement at present-day Brantford, Ontario. Brant also received a pension and a parcel of land at the Head of the Lake (Burlington). Brant and the Six Nations chiefs signed a formal deed in 1787 that extended several thousand acres of land to European settlers for farming, milling, and other trades to avoid the land’s usurpation by squatters. This was an important decision that is still a source of community debate.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

760

Buffalo

Clearly, Brant viewed becoming Europeanized as the primary means of long-term survival of the Mohawk, and he encouraged his followers to adopt European technologies and lifestyles. He was among the first generation of Mohawks to own land individually rather than maintaining communal ties, and he adopted European ways; for example, he owned two black slaves and developed a fondness for roast beef and organ music.In the end, it was in part his allegiance to Britain that led to the loss of territories in the United States. In addition, Brant’s failure to obtain firm title to the Haldimand lands and the Grand River reserve lands has led a number of contemporary historians to conclude that Brant’s presence was divisive and led to the ruination of the Six Nations. Joseph Brant lived his remaining days with his third wife, Catherine Croghan, spending the majority of his time trying to establish the Mohawks’ legal title to the land. In addition to raising his seven children, he also worked on translating the Bible into Mohawk. On November 24, 1807, Brant died at age 65 in the home he built at Grand River, Ontario. He was buried at the Episcopal church that he also constructed. Yale D. Belanger See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794. References and Further Reading Jakes, John. 1969. Mohawk: The Life of Joseph Brant. New York: Crowell-Collier Press. Kelsay, Isabel. 1984. Joseph Brant, 1743–1807: Man of Two Worlds. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Robinson, Helen. 1986. Joseph Brant: A Man for His People. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Thomas, Howard. 1973. Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea). New York: Prospect Books.

Buffalo (1759–1855) Chief Buffalo, also known as Kechewaishke, Beshkike, and Le Boeuf, was principal chief of the Lake Superior Ojibwe and signer of the 1837, 1842, and 1854 treaties. In 1850, President Zachary Taylor signed an executive order removing the Ojibwe to Minnesota. Two years later, at the age of 93, Buffalo led a delegation to Washington, where he met with Taylor’s successor, Millard Fillmore. Buffalo persuaded Fillmore to rescind the removal order and establish permanent homelands for the Ojibwe. Buf-

www.abc-clio.com

falo was chief architect of the 1854 treaty, which created four of the six Ojibwe reservations in Wisconsin. He died a year later at his home in La Pointe on Madeline Island in Wisconsin. Buffalo was born at La Pointe and distinguished himself in his early years as a powerful war chief. In 1842, he orchestrated a brilliant victory against the Sioux at the Brule River. Far outnumbered, on the night before the battle he ordered fires built along the river to trick the Sioux into thinking his numbers were greater than they were. Later, he became a powerful orator and a skillful negotiator. In 1854, he insisted that U.S. negotiators state explicitly in the treaty that the Ojibwe retained their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to the land they were giving up. Buffalo is best known for his highly successful 1852 journey to Washington, D.C., and meeting with the president, in which the removal order relocating the Ojibwe to Sandy Lake, Minnesota, was reversed. Along with O-sho-ga and interpreter Benjamin Armstrong (his nephew by marriage and adopted son), Buffalo walked and traveled by canoe, steamboat, and train to Washington, where his efforts to meet with Luke Lea, the commissioner of Indian affairs, were rebuffed. Lea told Armstrong to take the Ojibwes with him on the next train and that he did not want to hear from him again. Buffalo’s delegation attracted a lot of attention in Washington. The members were invited to the homes of prominent individuals and besieged by dozens of people who gathered outside their hotel, forcing them to occasionally slip away through a back door. While in the dining room one day, the delegation was approached by several Whig Party officials. The Whigs arranged an audience with their president, Fillmore, who smoked a peace pipe with the old chief. Buffalo told Fillmore about the disastrous annuity payment at Sandy Lake two years earlier, when U.S. officials had tried to lure the Ojibwe into permanently relocating to Minnesota. About four hundred Ojibwe had died from disease, starvation, or cold while trying to collect their treaty payments. Buffalo told the president that the Ojibwe were more resolved than ever not to relocate. He said there was universal disappointment over the failure of the U.S. government to live up to promises made in the 1837 and 1842 treaties. Buffalo told the president that he was particularly concerned that he might not be able to control the young warriors of his tribe. Two days later, Fillmore rescinded the removal order and ordered that

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

the annuity payments be distributed from La Pointe as before. The historic meeting also set up the 1854 treaty, the third and final land cession treaty, in which Ojibwe reservations in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were established. Buffalo insisted that the Ojibwe bands not give up the last of their lands without receiving an assignment of land as a new home. The chief added that he wanted annuities to be paid to his people at LaPointe instead of at Sandy Lake. The old LaPointe chief demanded that the government’s interpreter be replaced with one of his own people, because he did want any trickery as in the past. Buffalo’s health began to fail. He was too sick to attend the council meetings that took place during the 1855 annuity distribution. On September 7, 1855, two days after being baptized a Catholic, Buffalo died. He was buried in the Catholic cemetery at LaPointe on Madeline Island. However, according to some oral accounts, his remains were moved to an undisclosed location on the mainland. Patricia A. Loew See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty of 1855 with the Chippewa–February 22, 1855; Bureau of Indian Affairs. References and Further Reading Armstrong, Benjamin. 1892. Early Life among the Indians. Ashland, WI: Press of A. W. Bowron. Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Renewal. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Before the American Revolution, Native Americans enjoyed some protection from treaties made with the English; however, with war looming, the first Continental Congress created the Department of Indian Affairs. The function of this organization was to obtain treaties and ensure tribal neutrality during the upcoming war. Created in 1775, the department was divided into northern, central, and southern divisions. After the war, the United States War Department was officially formed, and one of its responsibilities was Indian relations. The view of

www.abc-clio.com

761

most politicians in the late 1700s and early 1800s was that the Indian and American culture were incompatible; however, they believed that Natives had the basic skills required to evolve culturally. To this end, Congress passed four Trade and Intercourse Acts, which dealt exclusively with Indian affairs. These acts established a factory system in which trade goods were provided at a fair price so that Indians would remain close to trading posts and maintain trade relations. President Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), along with those in Indian affairs, believed that the factory system was not a permanent solution, because the Indians would continue to be a hunter-gatherer state and thus would never be truly civilized. In 1822, the factory system was terminated. Two years later, John C. Calhoun, the secretary of war, established the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By this action, the War Department was relieved of all responsibility concerning Indian affairs but retained its authority in them. Calhoun appointed Thomas McKenney, a former superintendent of Indian affairs, as the head of this new office. McKenney and two assistants inherited the job of approving vouchers for expenditures, allocating funds for civilizing Indians, settling disagreements between Natives and white settlers over land, and handling all correspondence normally directed to the War Department concerning Indian affairs. McKenney quickly realized that, in order to carry out his new responsibilities, he must have the authority to enforce the actions of the department. On March 31, 1826, he presented to Congress a bill that would establish an office of Indian affairs independent of the secretary of war (the names Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Indian Affairs were interchangeable). Because Calhoun had established this division of the War Department with out congressional authorization, he retained all authority. This bill would make the Office of Indian Affairs an official body, which, although still serving under the secretary of war, would have the authority to act and to enforce the actions. Congress failed to approve the bill twice, and it was not until 1931 that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was officially recognized and formed. The formation of an official Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), it was hoped, would bring to a close an era of confusion in the handling of Indian policy. The opinion that Indians could be assimilated into white culture was abandoned, and the new consensus was to force the tribes off land desired by the U.S. government. This removal policy was formally

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

762

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

adopted in 1825 and, in the hands of the BIA, was fully implemented by the 1830s. With a concerted effort on the part of the BIA and the U.S. government, huge numbers of Indians were forced off their lands and pushed west. The results were particularly devastating in the Southeast, where the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole were moved hundreds of miles to their new homes. The most infamous incident involving these removals involved the Cherokee. Traditionally located in present-day Virginia, western Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, western North Carolina, South Carolina, northern Georgia, and northeastern Alabama, the Cherokee were a large tribe thriving in a hunter-gatherer state. The Cherokee had by any standards assimilated white civilization. They had developed a written language, had their own newspapers, had adopted the Christian religion, and had even adopted their own constitution. In an attempt to solve their dilemma legally, the Cherokee brought their case to the Supreme Court, where they unexpectedly won a decision favoring their ownership of their ancestral land. The decision reached by Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The Cherokee nation, . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, . . . in which the laws of Georgia can have no force . . .” (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832, 6 Peters, 534–536, 558–563). Unfortunately, the rest of the United States did not share the sentiments held by the Supreme Court. President Andrew Jackson, not an Indian sympathizer, refused to enforce the rulings. The Cherokee were forced to move, many times at gunpoint, and thousands died. The harsh conditions and cruel treatment of the BIA and the U.S. government during the removal caused eight thousand Indian deaths. This one-thousand-mile march west became known as the Trail of Tears because the Indian way of life was all but erased. In 1849, Congress moved the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Department of the Interior, which by 1867 had allowed the BIA to become more involved with the affairs of the Indians. By this time, the BIA had in effect become the governmental body presiding over the Indian territories, and it took full liberty in brutalizing their way of life. The agency forbade any language but English to be spoken, outlawed all Indian religious ceremonies, and forbade Indians any form of traditional government. The biggest injustices presided over by the BIA were felt by Indian children. Put into boarding school to “civilize” them, these young Indians were

www.abc-clio.com

abused physically, emotionally, and spiritually in an attempt to make them ashamed of who they were. The treatment of Indians and the shaming they endured caused suicide, alcoholism, and depression to become normal characteristics of Indian societies. For its entire duration as a government institution, the BIA invoked the will of the people in destroying the Native Americans’ lifeways. It was not until the early twentieth century, when federal policy began to stop trying to destroy Indian culture and instead began to protect it, that the BIA developed into an institution dedicated to helping the Indian cause. In 1928, the Meriam Report was published, which detailed the shortcomings of the services provided for the reservations. This report sparked an era in which the BIA and the government worked hard to improve Indian life socially, economically, and psychologically. By 1960, the BIA’s services were expanded to include forestry, agricultural extension service, range management, and land acquisition in an effort to improve the Indians’ plight. This was the peak of the BIA’s range of responsibilities; shortly thereafter, the government allocated the education of Indian children to the state and health care to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In the 1970s, Congress proceeded to pass a series of laws that helped better the situation of Native Americans. Some of these include the American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The BIA of today is attempting to change its position from one of management of tribes to one of assistance. One of the most important aspects of the modern BIA is that, of its more than ten thousand employees, 95 percent are Native American. Although Indians’ position toward the BIA is tentative, both sides hope that the BIA can truly move to a position of assistance instead of a dictator of policies. In September 2003, when the head of the BIA publicly apologized for the agency’s “legacy of racism and inhumanity,” it was seen by all as admission of past misdeeds and a commitment to a better future. The closing words of this apology express the desires and hopes of the BIA and Native Americans in years to come: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs was born in 1824 in a time of war on Indian people. May it live in the year 2000 and beyond as an instrument of their prosperity.” Arthur Holst

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Burke, Charles H.

See also American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975; Sovereignty; Termination; Treaty; Trust Doctrine. References and Further Reading Kvasnicka, Robert M., and Herman J. Viola, eds. 1979. The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824–1977. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, Charles H. (1861–1944) Charles H. Burke was commissioner of Indian affairs during 1921–1929 and one of the last overt supporters of the forced assimilation of American Indian

peoples. The decade during which Burke oversaw the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) witnessed the beginnings of a battle waged between the so-called obscurantists, such as Burke and interior secretaries Albert B. Fall and Hubert Work, and the “Red Progressives,” led by John Collier and Gertrude Bonnin. Before he became the head of the BIA, Burke’s tenure as a Republican congressman from South Dakota had earned him a long-established record as an assimilationist. In 1906, he had authored the Burke Act, which sought to change the terms of the Dawes Act of 1887, which had begun the process of alienating treaty-guaranteed land from the tribes. Burke’s act allowed a shortening of the twenty-fiveyear period before reservation land allotted to individual Indians lost its federal trust protection. All Indians judged by the government to be competent to handle their property independently could have the trust restrictions waived, opening the way for the sale of the land. This resulted in yet more land passing from Indian to non-Indian hands. During Burke’s tenure, the BIA and its parent body,

Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work and Commissioner of Indian Affairs Charles Burke (left) with Chief Red Eagle and Chief Bacon Rind. During Burke’s service as commissioner, he worked to improve health conditions among Native Americans. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

763

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

764

Caldwell, Billy

the Department of the Interior, pursued a policy of opening reservation lands to non-Indian settlement and reservation petroleum and mineral resources to business. Probably the most overt example of land grabbing against all law during Burke’s tenure as commissioner occurred in 1922, when he and Secretary Fall were able to persuade New Mexico senator Holm Bursum to propose a bill to legitimize the land claims of squatters who had illegally settled on land held by the New Mexico Pueblos. By September, the Bursum Bill had caught the attention of numerous other national and local groups working for reform in Indian affairs. John Collier’s articles against the bill were published in Sunset magazine, bringing the obscurantist-progressive debate into many middleclass homes. Organized by Collier and numerous Pueblo leaders in response to the threat posed by the Bursum Bill to Pueblo Indian lands, water, and, by extension, their entire way of life, a meeting took place on November 5, 1922, at Santo Domingo Pueblo. In attendance were more than one hundred representatives from all the pueblos of New Mexico. Although each pueblo governs and advocates for itself in most matters, a pueblo-wide council meeting to address a threat posed by a non-Indian government was not without precedent, as the Spaniards would have known since the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Owing to the efforts of the Indian peoples of the Southwest and much of the informed public, the bill was defeated. Burke continued the government’s longestablished policy of suppressing Indian culture, relying on off-reservation schools to accomplish his assimilationist agenda. Immediately upon taking office, Burke set about suppressing Indian religion by increasing enforcement of the Religious Crimes Codes, even personally ordering several religious leaders from Taos Pueblo jailed. In the case of the Sun Dance, he argued that, because the ceremony would require Indians to travel from a wide area for an extended period, to the neglect of their crops, it was not acceptable and could be punished under the Indian Offense Laws (Prucha 1984). Most of Burke’s term as commissioner was consumed by continuing criticism and activism by the Red Progressives, culminating in the release of the Meriam Report in 1928, which took the BIA to task for the poor living and working conditions and educational opportunities for Indians. The report concluded that the imposition of white culture and gov-

www.abc-clio.com

ernment by the BIA and the continuing depletion of tribal lands (most of which were guaranteed by treaty), the specific agenda that Burke pushed during his tenure, were the causes of most of the problems Indians faced. Steven L. Danver See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. References and Further Reading Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. Kelly, Lawrence C. 1979. “Charles Henry Burke (1921–29).” In The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824–1977, eds. Robert M. Kvasnicka and Herman J. Viola, 251–261. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Philp, Kenneth R. 1981. John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920–1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Caldwell, Billy (1780–1841) Billy Caldwell was a man of Mohawk-Irish descent who rose to a position of influence within the United Band of Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi Indians over the course of the early nineteenth century. After working for much of the early 1800s in the Indian Department of the British government, Caldwell used trade and kinship connections to rise to a position of power within the United Band community. In the late 1830s, he moved west with this band and served as an important intermediary and leader for them until his death in 1841. Billy Caldwell was the son of an officer in the British army and a Mohawk woman. Raised among the Mohawk people until the age of eight, he spent his remaining childhood years with his father’s second family near Detroit. Caldwell went to a Jesuit school, where he learned both French and English. In his late teens, he began to work for local fur traders, Robert and Thomas Forsyth, and by 1803 had assumed the position of clerk at their Chicago trading post. Over the course of the next decade, he ventured into trading operations of his own, although he never left the umbrella of the Forsyth firm. Dur-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Canassatego

ing this period, Caldwell also created a personal connection with the Potawatomi communities that resided on the St. Joseph River in southern Michigan by marrying La Nanette, the daughter of Wabinema, or White Sturgeon. Following her death, he married the mixed-descent daughter of Robert Forsyth and an Ojibwa woman. Through both his work and his marriages, by 1812 Caldwell had established himself as a valued middleman and broker among the British, American, and Indian communities in the region. At the outbreak of the War of 1812, Caldwell sided with the British, and in 1813 he obtained the rank of captain in the Western Division of the British Indian Department. During his service, he interacted primarily with Potawatomi warriors, who had also allied with the British. After the American victory, Caldwell’s fortunes declined within the British service, and he received his discharge in the fall of 1816. Failing to establish a career in the years following his discharge, Caldwell returned to Chicago in 1820 at the age of forty and reconnected with his former employers, the Forsyths. During this time in Chicago, Caldwell returned to his intermediary position among the diverse communities in the Great Lakes region. He often served as an interpreter for U.S. government agents, and his experience and standing in the community even garnered him a nomination for the office of justice of the peace in 1826. As a result of his affiliation with the Forsyths, his work for the American government, and his connections to the Potawatomi Indians in the region, Caldwell became a prominent figure in U.S.Potawatomi relations. Based primarily on the initiative of Indian agent Alexander Wolcott, Caldwell, as a named Potawatomi chief, negotiated and signed the 1829 treaty that ceded lands claimed by the United Band in and around the Rock River in northern Illinois. He also signed the treaty of 1833 in Chicago, which ceded approximately five million acres of land in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin and paved the way for the removal of the United Band to lands west of the Mississippi River. Yet in the years between this last treaty and his death, Caldwell worked solely on behalf of the United Band. He moved west with them and set up his home near Council Bluffs in Iowa Territory. During his brief tenure in the West, Caldwell helped to represent the Indians’ interests in all negotiations and interactions with American officials and gained the trust and allegiance of such leaders as Abtekizhek, or Half Day.

www.abc-clio.com

765

Billy Caldwell died on September 27, 1841, one of the many victims of a cholera epidemic that hit the region. Only a few years later, the comments of Potawatomi leaders during treaty negotiations testified to Caldwell’s legacy. The first of many demands was that the United States officially acknowledge the community of Indians formerly known as the United Band as “The Prairie Indians of Caldwell’s Band of Potawatomies.” John P. Bowes See also Forsyth, Thomas; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833. References and Further Reading Clifton, James A. 1978. “Personal and Ethnic Identity on the Great Lakes Frontier: The Case of Billy Caldwell, Anglo-Canadian.” Ethnohistory, 25(1): 69–94. Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture 1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas. Edmunds, R. David. 1979. The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Canassatego (c. 1690–1750) Canassatego was tadadaho (speaker) of the Iroquois Confederacy in the middle of the eighteenth century and a major figure in diplomacy with the French and English colonists. His advice that the colonies should form a union on the Iroquois model may have influenced Benjamin Franklin’s plans for colonial union as early as 1754 at the Albany Congress. Some scholars disagree with the idea of a congress coming from the Iroquois model. In 1744, Pennsylvania officials met with Iroquois sachems in a treaty council at Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This meeting was one of a number of significant diplomatic parlays between British colonists, the Iroquois, and their allies that preceded and helped shape the outcome of the French and Indian War. At the meeting, Canassatego and other Iroquois complained that the colonies, having no central authority, had been unable to restrain invasion of Iroquois lands. In that context, Canassatego advised the colonists to form a union like that of the Iroquois. Richard Peters, delegate from Pennsylvania, described Canassatego at Lancaster as “a tall, wellmade man” with “a very full chest and brawny

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

766

Canonicus

limbs, a manly countenance, with a good-natired [sic] smile. He was about 60 years of age, very active, strong, and had a surprising liveliness in his speech” (Grinde and Johansen 1991, 94). At the time of the Lancaster Treaty Council, Franklin, then a Philadelphia printer, was publishing the transcripts of Indian treaty councils as small booklets that enjoyed a lively sale in the colonies and in England. The Lancaster Treaty was one of several dozen treaty accounts published by Franklin between 1736 and 1762. Franklin read Canassatego’s words as they issued from his press and as he became an advocate of colonial union by the early 1750s, when he began his diplomatic career as a Pennsylvania delegate to the Iroquois and their allies. Franklin urged the British colonies to unite in emulation of the Iroquois Confederacy in a letter to his printing partner James Parker in 1751 and as he drew up his Albany Plan of Union in 1754. After he advised colonial leaders to form a federal union at the Lancaster Treaty Council of 1744, Canassatego also became a British literary figure, the hero of John Shebbeare’s Lydia, or, Filial Piety, published in 1755. The real Canassatego died in 1750. With the flowery eloquence prized by romantic novelists of his time, Shebbeare portrayed Canassatego as something more than human—something more, even, than the “noble savage” that was so popular in Enlightenment Europe. Having saved the life of a helpless English maiden from the designs of a predatory English ship captain en route, once in England Canassatego became judge and jury for all that was contradictory and corrupt in mid-eighteenth-century England. Disembarking, Shebbeare’s Canassatego meets with a rude sight: a ragged collection of dwellings, and men rising from the bowels of the earth dirty, broken, and degraded. Asking his hosts for an explanation, Canassatego is told that the men have been digging coal. The Iroquois sachem inquires whether everyone in England digs coal for a living and reflects that he is beginning to understand why so many English have fled to America. In 1775, Canassatego’s thirty-one-year-old advice was recalled at a treaty between colonial representatives and Iroquois leaders near Albany. The treaty commissioners told the sachems that they were heeding the advice Iroquois forefathers had given to the colonial Americans at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1744. Although some may be skeptical of the Iroquois influence on the founding of the U.S. government, there are interesting parallels in that

www.abc-clio.com

both are based on a democratic representation of their peoples. Bruce E. Johansen See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775. References and Further Reading Boyd, Julian. 1981. “Dr. Franklin, Friend of the Indian.” In Meet Dr. Franklin, ed. Ray Lokken, Jr. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute. Grinde, Donald A., Jr., and Bruce E. Johansen. 1991. Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy. Los Angeles: University of California. Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd, eds. 1938. Indian Treaties. Printed by Benjamin Franklin 1736–1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Wallace, Paul A. W. 1961. Indians in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Canonicus (c. 1562–1647) The name Canonicus (also Cananacus, Conanicus, and various other variations) might be a Latin derivation of Qunnoune (Drake 1880, 118). He was the sachem of the Narragansetts, a native North American nation established in what is today Rhode Island. Although “he never fully trusted the English” (Hodge 1912, I, 202), mostly because of their aggressive ways, Canonicus always remained friendly to them. He gave Roger Williams the tract of land where Providence, Rhode Island, now stands. Long after his death, Canonicus was still remembered as a great sachem, as evidenced by the U.S. Navy naming four ships after him. He should not be confused with Canonchet, a later Narragansett sachem. The earliest Narragansett sachem that the English had heard about was Tashtasick, who is sometimes referred to as Canonicus’s father. But the tradition also reports that Wessonsuoum and Keneschoo, his son and daughter, were the parents of Canonicus (Drake 1880, 118). He spent his life in a village called Narragansett, north of what is now Kingston, Rhode Island. Following the two-sachem rule, the Narragansetts had Canonicus as their home sachem, while Miantonomi, his nephew, dealt with other matters, such as war parties. Unlike other nearby nations, the Narragansetts largely avoided the diseases that carried off New England’s native population in 1617–1619. This situ-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Captain Jack

ation strengthened Canonicus’s power and authority, in part because numerous refugees from other nations joined his people. Although he fought the Wampanoags, Canonicus remained at peace with his English neighbors. In the spring of 1636, Roger Williams went to the Narragansett country after he was banished from Massachusetts. Tradition reports that he was greeted by Canonicus with the words, “What cheer, nétop [my friend]” (Simmons 1978, 194). They soon established a good relationship, and Canonicus later gave some land to Williams, who was involved in the diplomatic efforts to stop the Narragansett war against the Wampanoags. It was also under Williams’s influence that Canonicus decided, in 1637, to help the Puritans and their Mohegan allies in their war against the Pequots. After the Pequot Nation’s dispersal following that devastating war, Mohegans and Narragansetts agreed to a treaty that would erase old enmities. The treaty was broken in 1643 when Sequasson, an allied sachem, was attacked by Uncas, sachem of the Mohegans. Miantonomi asked the English if he could retaliate, and they answered that they would not intervene. Unfortunately, Miantonomi was captured by Uncas in a raid soon afterward. Despite the £40 ransom sent by Canonicus, Uncas handed Miantonomi over to the English, who sentenced him to death secretly under Uncas’s rule. The Narragansetts sought revenge for the disrespect of the ransom custom. On April 19, 1644, after having been under Puritan pressure for a long time, the Narragansetts surrendered themselves and their lands voluntarily to King Charles I for protection. Canonicus refused to explain his decision and suffered a loss of esteem among his people as a result. Canonicus signed a surrender treaty on August 28, 1645, in which he acknowledged various misdeeds, and he agreed to cede the Pequot country (Simmons 1978, 92). Canonicus never regained his full authority. He died on June 4, 1647, at the age of roughly eightyfive (Drake 1880, 119). Philippe Charland See also Aboriginal Title; Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829; Northeast and the Great Lakes; Right of Conquest; Williams, Roger. References and Further Reading Drake, Samuel. 1880. Drake’s Indians of North America. New York: Hurst. Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed. 1912. Handbook of North American Indians, vols. 1 and 2, North of Mexico. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

www.abc-clio.com

767

Simmons, William S. 1978. “Narragansett.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, Northeast, ed. Bruce G. Trigger, 190–197. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Captain Jack (c. 1837–1873) Kintpuash, a Modoc, later called Captain Jack by European American colonists of California, played a major role as a leader in the Modoc War of 1872–1873. Born at the Wa’chamshwash village on the Lower Lost River near the California-Oregon border, Kintpuash’s father was ambushed and slain by whites during the Ben Wright Massacre of 1846. Little is known of his life before age twenty-five. We do know that his Modoc name, Kintpuash, meant “He Has Water Brash [Psoriasis].” The Modocs had little contact with the immigrants until the advent of the 1849 California gold rush. Around this time, Kintpuash acquired the nickname Captain Jack because he wore a uniform

Captain Jack, also known as Kintpuash, was a key leader in the Modoc War. (Library of Congress)

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

768

Captain Jack

coat with brass buttons, which had been given to him by a U.S. Army officer. Although the Modocs opposed European American expansion into their lands, Captain Jack counseled peace and encouraged trade with the settlers living near Eureka, California, during the 1840s. He had taken two wives by this time. The gold rush intensified tensions and hostilities in the 1850s until Schonchin John, a Modoc chief, signed a treaty removing his band to a reservation in Oregon in 1864. The area was also the traditional homeland of the Klamaths, however, who resented the Modoc intrusion. Realizing that the land in Oregon was insufficient, Captain Jack and his followers returned to California and requested a reservation there. The federal and state authorities denied their request. Settlers soon began to insist on the forced removal of Modocs. On November 28, 1872, forces invaded Captain Jack’s camp and coerced him into consenting to removal. As tensions mounted at the meeting, violence broke out. Scarfaced Charley, a Modoc leader angered by the army’s behavior, refused to give up his gun, and shots were fired during the ensuing struggle. When the fighting stopped, eight soldiers and fifteen Modocs were dead. Fearing reprisals, the Modocs under Captain Jack fled to the Lava Beds nearby, believing that they would be safe there. However, this was not the case. Hooker Jim and his Modocs, encamped on the other side of the Lost River, were attacked by settlers; while retreating to the Lava Beds, they killed twelve whites in revenge. Within this hostile environment, the Modoc leaders—Captain Jack, Schonchin John, and Hooker Jim—prepared for an attack in the vast, largely inaccessible volcanic area. But Captain Jack still counseled peace and negotiation, arguing that the government would ultimately win. However, more militant factions under Hooker Jim and Schonchin John outvoted him. On January 13, 1873, troops moved into the Lava Beds to quell the Modoc uprising. On February 28, Captain Jack’s cousin Winema (married to a white man named Frank Riddle) and a peace delegation began talks with the rebellious Modocs. Hooker Jim and Schonchin John thought Captain Jack a coward for consenting to the talks, so they insisted that Captain Jack kill General Edward S. Canby, the head of the delegation. The Modoc militants also believed that U.S. resolve would be damaged by the death of Canby.

www.abc-clio.com

Reluctantly, Captain Jack agreed to their terms only if the Modocs were refused amnesty and a return to their California homeland. At a meeting on April 11, Captain Jack shot Canby. The Reverend Eleazar Thomas was also killed, and Albert Meachum, the Indian superintendent, was severely wounded. Winema and her husband managed to escape with the remaining members of the peace party. Quickly, the government fielded more troops and heavier weapons. The rugged lava rock terrain worked to the Modocs’ advantage at first, but dissension among the Modoc leaders and harsh conditions weakened their position. Captain Jack surrendered in late May. After a military trial, in which Hooker Jim testified for the prosecution, Captain Jack, Boston Charley, Black Jim, and Schonchin John were hanged on October 3, 1873. Since the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant had instituted its Peace Policy toward Indians, the American people were stunned by the uprising and the consequent inhumanity and insensitivity of the pursuit and hanging of the Modocs. In the final analysis, white prejudice, Indian betrayal, greed, and an opportunistic press made a deplorable situation far worse. Employing more than a thousand soldiers to fight a Modoc force that never numbered more than fifty-three, the army incurred losses of seven officers, thirty-nine soldiers, two scouts, and sixteen civilians. The Modoc dead numbered eleven women and seven men. An enormous human and financial cost was endured to capture and remove 155 Modocs to Indian Territory. A melodrama entitled Captain Jack was staged for a brief time in 1873, but it failed to fully capitalize on the tragic bloodletting. A second group of grisly entrepreneurs were more successful. On the day after Captain Jack’s execution, robbers excavated his grave, embalmed his body, and put it on display in a carnival sideshow that toured profitably across many eastern cities. In 1909, fifty-one of the Oklahoma Modocs were permitted to return to their reservation in Oregon. Bruce E. Johansen

ABC-CLIO

See also California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest; Indian Territory. References and Further Reading Hagen, Olaf T. No date. “Modoc War Correspondence and Documents, 1865–1878.” May 1942. Typescript, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service. [Approximately 1,780 pages of documents selected from records in the National Archives,

1-800-368-6868

Carson, Kit

769

War Department, Presidio of San Francisco, University of California (Berkeley) Library, and the Applegate Collection.] McCarthy, Michael. No date. “Journal of Michael McCarthy.” Library of Congress. Accessed at http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ labe/biblio.htm. Miller, Colonel William Haven. No date. “Incidents of the Modoc War.” [Narrative made available to Dr. Ron Rickey by Miller’s grandson, Captain Charles F. Humphrey, Vallejo, California. Miller was a second lieutenant in Troop F, First Cavalry, during the Modoc War.]

Carson, Kit (1809–1868) Christopher Houston Carson, called Kit, served in the American West as a mountain man, expedition guide, Indian agent, and soldier from 1829 until his death in 1868. Although best known as an Indian fighter, Carson contributed to the development of the nascent United States as a guide in John Charles Frémont’s expeditions into the western territories and as a messenger and soldier under the leadership of General Stephen Watts Kearny in California in 1846 and General Edward Richard Sprigg Canby in New Mexico during the Civil War. Carson’s most infamous role befell him in 1863, when he was ordered to amass and remove the Diné (Navajos) from northeastern Arizona to the Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico—a series of events that culminated in the Long Walk. Born on December 24, 1809, in Boonesborough, Kentucky, but raised near Franklin, Missouri, Carson was the sixth child of Rebecca Robinson Carson and her husband Lindsey. Kit quit school upon his father’s death in 1818 and spent the majority of his youth working odd jobs that did not require the adolescent to read and write. In 1824, Carson’s mother placed her fifteen-year-old son in a formal apprenticeship with David Workman, a saddle and harness maker. Two years later, Kit broke his contractual agreement with Workman and eventually made his way via the Santa Fe Trail to Taos, New Mexico, an important supply base and convenient marketplace for trappers and traders located seventy miles north of Santa Fe. Here, an illiterate Carson learned to speak Spanish fluently and found work as a cook for Ewing Young, a master trapper from Tennessee who earlier had participated in the overland trade with Santa Fe.

www.abc-clio.com

Scout Christopher “Kit” Carson (1809–1868) was renowned as a frontiersman, but also has a controversial legacy for his treatment of native people. (Library of Congress)

Carson first accompanied Young on a trapping expedition to California’s central valley in August 1829, returning as Young’s most dependable lieutenant in April 1831. While serving in this capacity, Carson fought, negotiated, and traded with the Zuni, Mojave, and Apache. Carson’s association with Young launched his extended career as a fur trapper and brought him into contact with Thomas “Broken Hand” Fitzpatrick and the Rocky Mountain Fur Company. His exploits under the leadership of Fitzpatrick, beginning in the fall of 1831, led Carson down the Platte, Green, Columbia, and Salmon rivers—some of the most spectacular and beaverrich areas in the Rocky Mountains. Carson spent the next decade trapping beaver in the American West, where he became intimately familiar with the cultures, languages, and traditions of several Indian tribes—experiences that later served him well as a federal Indian agent to the Ute in northern New Mexico. As the beaver trade waned during the late 1830s and early 1840s, William Bent employed

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

770

Carson, Kit

Carson as a post hunter at Bent’s Fort on the Arkansas River. While visiting family in Missouri in 1842, Carson met John C. Frémont, a western surveyor, explorer, and cartographer who later became a California senator and Republican Party presidential candidate, on a riverboat headed up the Missouri River from St. Louis. Frémont recruited Carson as a guide for his first expedition across the Great Plains on the Oregon Trail and into the Rocky Mountains, where they penetrated the Wind River Range in Wyoming and ascended a summit later christened Fremont Peak. Over the next several years, Carson escorted Frémont to Oregon, California, the central Rocky Mountains, and the Great Basin. Frémont’s popular reports, actually written by his wife Jessie, sensationalized Carson’s tenure as an expedition guide, transforming the temperate Missourian into a hero of gun duels, bear hunts, and wilderness adventures. Carson’s notoriety as an effectual mountain man and scout coincided with the adoption of Manifest Destiny by the United States as an axiom for western expansion. His third and final expedition occurred when Frémont asked him in August 1845 to serve as a guide to California. This scientific foray collided with international politics. President James Knox Polk’s aspiration to acquire Mexicancontrolled California and the New Mexico territory led to war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The Mexican government ultimately ceded much of the Southwest to the United States. During the Mexican-American War, Carson served as a dispatch rider for the U.S. Army under the leadership of General Stephen Kearny. Stationed in California, Carson twice carried urgent messages to Washington, D.C., including news of the discovery of gold. These duties kept Carson away from his Taos home and his wife, Maria Josefa Jaramillo. Carson also missed the 1847 Taos Rebellion, in which Charles Bent, governor of New Mexico, lost his life while protecting members of Kit’s family from a mob. Concern for his family’s safety convinced Carson to quit his itinerant life. In 1853, Carson accepted an appointment in Taos as federal agent for the Ute Indians. Carson remained an Indian agent until the outbreak of the Civil War, at which time he accepted a position as lieutenant colonel of the First New Mexico Volunteers. Promoted to colonel in September 1861, Carson actively participated in General Edward Canby’s unsuccessful attempt to repel Confederate forces at the Battle of Valverde on February 21, 1862. A brief

www.abc-clio.com

assignment at Fort Craig in southern New Mexico cost Carson the opportunity to participate in the Union victory at Glorieta Pass. Owing to Carson’s familiarity with southwestern tribes, General James Henry Carleton, Canby’s successor as head of Union forces in New Mexico, next selected Carson to lead a military campaign against the Apaches in an effort to relocate the tribe to the Bosque Redondo. In June 1863, after successfully subjugating the Apaches, Carson left Fort Sumner, marched westward with seven hundred men, and launched three arduous scouting expeditions into the heart of Navajoland—a forty-five-thousandsquare-mile swath of land in northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona—to round up the Diné in preparation for their trek to the Bosque Redondo. Unable to locate more than a handful of Navajos at any given time, Carson grew frustrated but continued his pursuit of the tribe. Breaching the Navajos’ stronghold at Canyon de Chelly that winter, Carson practiced a scorched-earth policy that resulted in little loss of life but compelled the Navajos to surrender. In March 1865, Carson was promoted to brigadier general and accepted an appointment as commander of Fort Garland, Colorado. The following October, Carson participated in a treaty council with the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache in south-central Kansas at the confluence of the Little Arkansas and Arkansas Rivers. These negotiations resulted in the establishment of a reservation as outlined in the Treaty of the Little Arkansas River signed between the United States and the Cheyenne and Arapaho on October 14, 1865. His health failing, Carson left military service in 1867 and assumed the position of superintendent of Indian affairs for Colorado. While serving in this capacity, Carson accompanied a Ute delegation to Washington, D.C., to negotiate the establishment of a permanent reservation for the Colorado and Utah Utes. On May 25, 1868, almost immediately following his return to his beloved West and one month after the death of his wife, Carson passed away at Fort Lyon, Colorado. Buried in the old Taos cemetery, resting peacefully beside his wife, Carson irrevocably abandoned his roving way of life. Sonia Dickey

ABC-CLIO

See also Canyon de Chelly, Arizona; Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Long Walk; Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 14, 1865.

1-800-368-6868

Cass, Lewis

771

References and Further Reading Carter, Harvey L. 1968. “Dear Old Kit”: The Historical Christopher Carson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dunlay, Tom. 2000. Kit Carson and the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Guild, Thelma S., and Harvey L. Carter. 1984. Kit Carson: A Pattern for Heroes. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Roberts, David. 2000. A Newer World: John C. Frémont, Kit Carson, and the Claiming of the American West. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sabin, Edwin. 1995. Kit Carson Days: Adventures in the Path of Empire. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Simmons, Marc. 2003. Kit Carson and His Three Wives: A Family History. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Cass, Lewis (1782–1866) Lewis Cass served as governor of Michigan Territory. In that capacity, he led expeditions in the 1820s to secure millions of acres in land concessions from Native nations. As a territorial governor, a U.S. senator, secretary of state, secretary of war, and a presidential candidate, Cass was a fervent supporter of territorial expansion. Born in New Hampshire and educated at Exeter Academy, Cass moved to Ohio in 1799 and began a career in law and politics. During the War of 1812, he attained the rank of brigadier general, and in 1813 he was appointed governor of Michigan Territory by President James Madison. He would hold this position until 1831, which made him the longest-serving territorial governor in the history of the United States. Cass considered Indian affairs to be his major responsibility as a territorial governor, and he pursued this endeavor with enthusiasm. Beginning in 1820, he embarked on an expedition around the Great Lakes to secure land concessions from Native nations; in more than twenty treaties negotiated by Cass, tens of millions of acres of land were secured for the United States. Land and federal payments were also secured for Cass’s negotiating partners, which included Cass’s private secretary, his personal assistant, and his physician. On his negotiating team, Cass also included Henry Schoolcraft, whose vivid descriptions of the land ceded by Native nations contributed to westward settlement by U.S. citizens.

www.abc-clio.com

Lewis Cass (1782–1866), who served as President James Buchanan’s secretary of state, secured millions of acres of Indian land while negotiating treaties. (Library of Congress)

Among the notable treaties negotiated by Cass are the Treaty of St. Mary’s (1818), the Saginaw Treaty (1819), and the Treaty of Sault St. Marie (1820). One of his greatest accomplishments as a negotiator, however, was not a land cession treaty but a “peace” treaty negotiated among Native nations. With the express purpose of ending conflict among Native peoples, Cass and William Clark assembled representatives of the “Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, [and] Potawattomie” tribes at Prairie du Chien in 1825. There, the Native nations agreed for the first time to live within certain set boundaries, in effect “clearing the title” to real estate in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and other present-day states. Within twenty years, virtually all of this land had been purchased (or taken) from individual tribes. Because of his reputation as an Indian expert, Cass was called upon for testimony before the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

772

Chivington, John Milton

Supreme Court when the Cherokee Nation claimed sovereign jurisdiction over their territory in the late 1820s. Cass supported the position of the State of Georgia in that case, arguing that, for their own good, the Cherokee people should be removed west of the Mississippi. The Cherokee people won the case, but Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the outcome of the litigation. In 1831, President Andrew Jackson appointed Cass secretary of war. As “Indian affairs” became more a matter of war than of diplomacy, Cass remained a leader in land acquisition for the United States. In 1832, for instance, at the request of superintendent of Indian affairs William Clark, Cass signed the order of extermination in the Black Hawk War. From 1836 to 1842, Cass served as the American ambassador to France. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Michigan in 1845 and in 1848 was nominated for the presidency by the Democratic Party. In that election, Martin Van Buren split the party by running as a third-party candidate, garnering barely enough votes to secure the election for Cass’s Whig opponent, Zachary Taylor. Cass continued to hold his Senate seat until 1857, when he was appointed secretary of state by James Buchanan. He resigned in 1860 to protest the lack of reinforcements at Charleston forts prior to the beginning of the Civil War. Cass died peacefully at his home in Michigan in 1866. Martin Case See also Black Hawk; Clark, William; Jackson, Andrew; Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851. References and Further Reading Prucha, Francis Paul. 1967. Lewis Cass and American Indian Policy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts 1790–1834. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1999. Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Chivington, John Milton (1821–1894) John Chivington was a minister, Civil War hero, Indian fighter, and politician. A Methodist preacher

www.abc-clio.com

turned military commander, Colonel John Milton Chivington won fame for his contributions to the Union victory at Glorieta Pass, a battle that is credited with saving the West for the Union. The luster of his historic service subsequently was tarnished by often-inaccurate accounts of his role as commander of the Third Colorado Volunteer Cavalry at the Battle of Sand Creek, labeled by eastern newspapers and philanthropists “the Sand Creek Massacre.” Standing six foot four inches, possessing a barrel torso, a thick neck, a full beard, and piercing eyes, the 260-pound Chivington was a formidable figure both in the pulpit and in uniform, but his insistence on strict discipline and obedience to his orders made his parishioners view him as being excessively rigid and his soldiers to unfavorably characterize him as a martinet. Throughout 1864, Cheyenne warriors under Chief Black Kettle had been terrorizing cities and settlements in the Colorado Territory, disrupting lines of communications, and slaying residents. By late summer, Denver had been virtually sealed off, leading territorial governor John Evans to request military assistance. General Samuel R. Curtis, commander of the Department of Kansas, ordered Colonel Chivington and the Third Colorado Volunteer Cavalry, who were nearing the conclusion of an uneventful one-hundred-day enlistment, to quell the Indian threat in the Denver region. Following a fresh, bloody trail, the troops arrived at Fort Lyon, whereupon Chivington was informed by both the post commandant, Major Scott Anthony (brother of suffragist Susan B. Anthony), and Indian agent Samuel G. Colley, that Black Kettle’s warriors were encamped at Sand Creek. The two urged him to launch an immediate offensive. Assured of the hostile nature of the encampment, at dawn on November 29, 1864, Chivington began to attack the camp, and in the ensuing engagement approximately two hundred warriors and fifty women and children, some active participants in the fighting, were slain. Despite his acclaim throughout Colorado as a hero and savior, Chivington was decried as a mass murderer in eastern newspapers, which cited stories by witnesses of dubious veracity who asserted that Sand Creek was a peaceful winter camp under the protection of the U.S. government, and that the village at the time of the attack had even flown an American flag as a sign of peace. Three investigative hearings were held into Chivington’s conduct during the battle at Sand

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Chivington, John Milton

773

On November 29, 1864, Methodist minister and soldier Colonel John M. Chivington (1821–1894), seated, led a force of Colorado Volunteers in a surprise attack on a peaceful Cheyenne village at Sand Creek, Colorado. More than half of the camp’s inhabitants, mostly women and children, were killed. The attack put Chivington in a storm of controversy and he spent the remainder of his life defending his actions. (North Wind Picture Archives)

Creek, none of which was impartial or fair to Chivington. One was chaired by Lieutenant Colonel Samuel F. Tappan, a personal enemy of Chivington, who refused to admit many of Chivington’s objections to testimony; another was chaired by the Committee on the Conduct of the War, infamous for its questionable ethical practices and legal abuses while assailing the record of officers it wanted removed. In each hearing, witnesses supporting Chivington’s claim that no American flag was visible in the village, that fresh scalps were found in the lodges, that Major Anthony had given him written orders to attack what had been described as a hostile encampment, and that he had done his best to maintain discipline and prevent mutilation of Indian corpses were summarily dismissed. Instead, credence was given to self-serving testimony by fur traders who

www.abc-clio.com

had lost valuable pelts stored in the camp during the battle and by Edward Wynkoop, an ambitious officer and pacifist who sought to replace Anthony as commander of Fort Lyon and who, without any official authorization, had led Black Kettle to believe that Sand Creek would be considered a safe haven. Even after these biased hearings, evidence against him was so weak that Chivington was mustered out of the army without receiving any punishment for the alleged crimes at Sand Creek. His reputation slandered, an embittered Chivington moved to Denver, steadfastly maintaining the propriety of his actions at Sand Creek. Chivington spent the remainder of his life holding local political offices and serving on various editorial boards, including that of The Christian Advocate. His death in October 1894 was marked by the largest funeral in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

774

Chouteau, Auguste

Colorado’s history; thousands of mourners paid homage to the man they considered one of their state’s greatest heroes. Bruce A. Rubenstein See also Black Kettle. References and Further Reading Craig, Reginald. 1959. The Fighting Parson. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. Hoig, Stan. 1961. The Sand Creek Massacre. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mendoza, Patrick M. 1993. Song of Sorrow. Denver: Willow Wind. U. S. Congress. Senate. “Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War,” 38th Cong., 2nd sess. Senate Document 142, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1865. U. S. Congress. Senate. “Report of the Secretary of War,” 39th Cong., 2nd sess. Senate Executive Document 26. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1867.

Chouteau, Auguste (1749–1829) From fur trader and clerk to explorer and treaty negotiator, Auguste Chouteau’s influence over the Upper Louisiana Territory and the West has been the inspiration of legends and novels. Though born in New Orleans to Marie Therese Bourgeois and Rene Auguste Chouteau, Chouteau was raised by his mother’s common-law husband, Pierre Leclede, who also mentored him in the fur trade. By age fourteen, Chouteau assisted Leclede in the founding of St. Louis, Missouri. There, he and his family built a fur trade empire by establishing trading posts up the Missouri River and its tributaries. His younger brother Pierre, sometimes referred to as Peter, was also involved in Indian and trading affairs. Besides operating his fur trading business, Chouteau also served as a judge and as a lieutenant colonel in the local militia. Chouteau is said to have owned thousands of acres of land, as well as the most impressive library west of the Mississippi, containing more than six hundred volumes of books. His prosperity and confident knowledge of both Indian affairs and the fur trade made him a valuable asset to Americans taking over the territory. Chouteau came to the attention of Thomas Jefferson following the Louisiana Purchase. In 1804, William Henry Harrison arrived at St. Louis to be the guest of Chouteau. His purpose was

www.abc-clio.com

to make a treaty with the Sac and Fox. Chouteau offered his expertise. In the course of that negotiation, Chouteau, who owned extensive lands, kept Harrison from invalidating the Spanish land grants in place prior to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 by inserting an article into the treaty for that purpose, thereby protecting Chouteau’s own lands. As early as 1813, while the War of 1812 raged, the Missouri Gazette called upon President James Madison to consider appointing August Chouteau and William Clark as treaty commissioners to oversee a treaty involving the Indians. In 1815, following the end the War of 1812, Chouteau was indeed appointed treaty commissioner to assist in negotiations with former warring Indians, particularly those who were situated near the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Missouri territorial governor William Clark and Illinois territorial governor Ninian Edwards were the other two commissioners for the treaty that came to be known as the Treaty of Portage des Sioux. The site of the treaty was north of St. Louis, Missouri Territory, along the Missouri River where it empties into the Mississippi River. Part of Chouteau’s duties involved directing reliable men to travel to various Indian settlements to invite and influence them to attended the treaty. At least nineteen tribes arrived during the summer of 1815, including the Big and Little Osage, Iowa, Sac (Sauk) and Fox, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Delaware, Piankashaw, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, Maha, Ponca, and Sioux. The commissioners made extensive preparations, including the construction of a council house and a large arbor for shade. The government supplied three companies of American infantry from nearby Fort Bellefountain, and on the river sailed gunboats. All were intended to show that the United States was intent on peace. An excessive array of presents, which had cost thousands of dollars, were spread out to be offered to the headmen of each tribal nation, everything from blankets and cloth to rifles and tobacco. The intention was to prove the wealth and superiority of the Americans by giving such trade goods in order to induce an offer to live at peace. There was no talk of land cession in this treaty, which had been a concern of many of the Indians. Of all the commissioners present, Chouteau is reported to have made quite a stir in a scarlet coat with gold lace and buttons. Meeting with individual tribes, the commissioners smoothed out problems among the tribes. Almost all seemed willing to lay aside their war talk and treat for peace, all but the Sac and Fox, who

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Clark, William

775

challenged the validity of the treaty of 1804. According to the Americans, they boldly attempted to intimidate the commissioners, informing them that they had raiding parties out that very moment. But later, according to the Sac and Fox leader Lemoite, the Americans had guns aimed at him and the members of his delegation. Refusing to go along with the treaty, the Sacs quit the place during the night. They would not return to negotiations for nearly a year. In the meantime, the other attendees agreed and the Treaty of Portage Des Sioux was ratified on December 26, 1815. Chouteau spent the remaining years of his life at St. Louis overseeing his extensive holdings and serving the government when called upon. Sally Colford Bennett See also Black Hawk; Clark, William; Treaty with the Potawatomi–July 18, 1815, through Treaty with the Kickapoo–September 2, 1815. References and Further Reading Cunningham, Mary B., and Jeanne C. Blythe. 1977. The Founding Family of St. Louis. St. Louis, MO: Midwest Technical Publications. Fisher, Robert L. 1933. “The Treaty of Portage Des Sioux.” Missouri Valley Historical Review, 19(4): 495–508. Gregg, Kate L. 1939. “The War of 1812 in the Missouri Frontier, Part II.” Missouri Historical Review 33(2): 184–202. Gregg, Kate L., ed. 1937. West with Dragoons: The Journal of William Clark on his Expedition to Establish Fort Osage, August 25 to September 22, 1808. Fulton, MO: Ovid Bell Press. Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Clark, William (1770–1838) Born the ninth of ten children to John and Ann (Rogers) Clark on August 1, 1770, on a plantation in Caroline County, Virginia, William Clark led a full life as a soldier, explorer, Indian agent, Missouri territorial governor, and superintendent of Indian affairs at St. Louis. While Clark was a teenager, his family relocated to a new plantation called Mulberry Hill near present-day Louisville, Kentucky. Clark joined the Kentucky militia, and then, in 1792, President George Washington commissioned Clark a lieutenant of infantry. During General Anthony Wayne’s Ohio River Indian campaigns, Clark fought at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. He resigned his commission

www.abc-clio.com

A capable and energetic soldier, William Clark (1770–1838) became one of the United States’ most able Indian agents after his exploration of the Louisiana Purchase with Meriwether Lewis. (Library of Congress)

shortly after the Treaty of Greenville to return home and care for his parents and the family estate. In 1803, Clark agreed to co-command an expedition with Meriwether Lewis to explore the Louisiana Purchase and establish a commercial route to the Pacific. Lewis and Clark met with Indian leaders, distributed trade goods, delivered speeches, solicited Indian delegations to travel to Washington, and conducted negotiations for peace, friendship, and trade. They announced U.S. sovereignty and left calling cards of empire (medals, flags, certificates). Clark gained an appreciation for the tremendous diversity of Indian cultures and was the more skillful diplomat of the two. Following the expedition’s return, President Thomas Jefferson appointed Clark Indian agent. From 1807 to 1838, Clark served as the federal government’s representative to the Indian nations in the West, personally signing thirty-seven treaties (onetenth of all ratified treaties). Clark’s first treaty was concluded at Fort Osage during the summer of 1808. The Osages present agreed to a land cession in

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

776

Cochise

exchange for a trading post and military protection from their enemies. Other Osages who were not present demanded that the treaty be modified, and then they, too, accepted it. During the War of 1812, President James Madison commissioned Clark as Missouri’s first territorial governor, a position Clark occupied from 1813 to 1820. Clark also acted as an ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs. To keep Missouri’s frontier settlements safe, he authorized a string of frontier blockhouses and mounted ranger patrols to keep the peace. He also took the offensive against British forces and their allies at Prairie du Chien. The Treaty of Ghent established peace with Britain but not with their Indian allies. Clark presided at the Portage des Sioux peace council in 1815 and within a year had negotiated peace and friendship treaties with the Iowa, Kansa, Kickapoo, Omaha, Osage, Piankashaw, Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, Sioux, and Winnebago tribes. Governor Clark conducted treaties of trade and friendship for tribes farthest from settlement, and treaties calling for land cessions and removal for those located within the Missouri and Arkansas territorial boundaries. Whether conducted at his council house in St. Louis—with the Kansa, Kickapoo, Osage, Otoe, Ponca, Pawnee, Quapaw—or at Washington—with the Iowa, Sac and Fox—Clark acquitted himself as a competent diplomat at councils. He also supervised Indian agents, including Pierre Chouteau, Nicholas Boilvin, Lawrence Taliaferro, and Thomas Forsyth. After Alexander McNair defeated Clark in Missouri’s inaugural gubernatorial election, President James Monroe appointed Clark superintendent of Indian affairs headquartered at St. Louis in 1822. Most treaties made before 1820 had sought peace and friendship to undermine European rivals, or trading relationships to promote the fur trade and provide manufactured goods. Those made after 1820 generally involved land cessions and removal. Clark exercised jurisdiction over western tribes and eastern nations being removed west of the Mississippi River. He expressed great sympathy for those removed tribes and promoted their interests as he understood them. Nevertheless, Clark agreed with and helped implement Indian removal. His ethnocentrism caused him to dismiss the notion that Indians could maintain their identity and culture within the advancing U.S. frontier. As superintendent, Clark conducted twelve treaties at places like Fort Atkinson, Fort Leaven-

www.abc-clio.com

worth, Prairie du Chien, St. Louis, and Washington. Most of these treaties involved land cessions by tribes including the Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kickapoo, Osage, Piankashaw, Sac and Fox, and Shawnee. When not involved in treaties, Clark issued trading licenses and aided eastern tribes undergoing removal. He presided at the peace treaty at Prairie du Chien in 1825 and negotiated with Black Hawk and Keokuk during and after the Black Hawk War. Perhaps it was in the realm of policymaking that Clark made his greatest contributions. Clark was the most experienced and knowledgeable government official in the trans-Mississippi West. From the government’s perspective, Clark served as an able administrator of federal policy who offered helpful suggestions in fine-tuning policy to match frontier realities. In a time of expanding bureaucratic control, he helped modify the Indian Civilization Act of 1819. Clark and Michigan territorial governor Lewis Cass filed a report in 1829 that changed the laws and regulations governing Indian affairs, contributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, revised the Trade and Intercourse Laws, and culminated in the reorganization of the entire Indian Bureau in 1834. That year, Clark retained his influential position in St. Louis despite being in his sixties. Jay H. Buckley See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794; Black Hawk; Cass, Lewis; Chouteau, Auguste; Forsyth, Thomas; Greenville, Ohio; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Jefferson, Thomas; Lewis, Meriwether; Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri; Treaty of Ghent, 1814; Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Wayne, Anthony. References and Further Reading Bakeless, John. 1947. Lewis and Clark: Partners in Discovery. New York: William Morrow. Ronda, James P. 1984. Lewis and Clark among the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Steffen, Jerome O. 1977. William Clark: Jeffersonian Man on the Frontier. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Cochise (c. 1810–1874) One of the greatest Indian leaders of the nineteenth century, Cochise led the Chiricahua Apache in a protracted war of survival against both the encroaching Mexicans and Americans. Cochise successfully

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Cochise

A master of hit-and-run tactics, Chochise (c. 1810–1874) became a feared Native American warrior in the Southwest. Cochise was the predecessor to Geronimo, leading the Chiricahua Apache during the 1860s and early 1870s. He died June 8, 1874, on the reservation near Apache Pass, Arizona. (Bettmann/Corbis)

evaded capture and staved off American forces throughout the 1860s. His strategic genius, fearlessness, and sheer stamina enabled the Chiricahua chief to eventually broker a treaty that met his demands rather than those of the United States. No one knows exactly when Cochise was born, but most historians believe it was around 1810. He was the son of Pisago Cabezón, a great leader in his own right of the Chokonen band of the Chiricahua Apache. Cochise was the eldest of three brothers, all of whom were steeped in traditional Chokonen ways. At the age of fifteen, he began training to become a warrior, at which he quickly excelled; he was fast, disciplined, and an excellent marksman with the bow and arrow. Soon he was accompanying the older warriors on horse raids. Cochise distin-

www.abc-clio.com

777

guished himself in these raids and was honored for his ability and bravery. In the 1830s, Cochise engaged in conflicts with Mexican settlers. The raids and counterraids turned what would later become the American Southwest into a dangerous and violent place. The bloodshed continued into the 1840s, as Cochise became one of the principle Chokonen war leaders. During that time, Mexicans killed his father, which only led to further escalation of the fighting. Moreover, his father’s death fostered a deep antagonism and hatred for Mexicans, sentiments Cochise held for the rest of his life. After the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Americans began pouring into the New Mexico territory, or, from Cochise’s standpoint, the Apachería. Indeed, for the Chiricahua these new immigrants were nothing short of invaders who were competing for scarce resources in the harsh desert environment. Inevitably, this new white settlement led to conflict. Matters were aggravated when the son of a white settler was kidnapped. Territorial officials immediately—and erroneously—blamed Cochise and his Chokonen band. In February 1861, Lieutenant George Bascom, who was posted at Fort Buchanan, called Cochise in to parley. Once in the American camp, the Chiricahua leader was apprehended and charged with abduction of the young boy. Under heavy guard, Cochise managed to cut his way out through the back of the tent where he was held prisoner and escape into the nearby hills. Unfortunately, five others, including his two nephews and one of his brothers, did not make it to safety. In retaliation for Bascom’s treachery, Cochise and his men attacked a wagon train, killing all the Mexicans and kidnapping four Americans. He held the men hostage, offering to free them only if his brother and nephews were released. Bascom refused. In response, Cochise executed his four prisoners. Bascom, in turn, hanged all five of the Chiricahuas, leaving the corpses dangling from an oak tree for weeks. The hatred Cochise reserved for Mexicans was now extended to the Americans, leading to a state of all-out war that would last more than a decade. As the fighting between the Chiricahua and the United States roared on, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed General Oliver Otis Howard as chief peace commissioner in the Southwest. Though Howard was a respected military man, he was also a Christian humanitarian who believed that negotiation, rather

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

778

Cohen, Felix S.

than brute force, was a better means of ending conflict. He took extraordinary steps to court Cochise and bring the bloody war with the Apache to an end. In October 1872, Howard and his first lieutenant, Joseph Sladen, headed into the Dragoon Mountains of eastern Arizona to broker a treaty with the Chiricahua. Howard acquiesced to nearly all Cochise’s demands, carving out a reservation in southeastern Arizona along the Mexican border. For his part, Cochise kept the peace and halted all fighting in the United States, though he continued to raid in Mexico. The peace, however, ended with the death of the great Apache leader in 1874. Bradley Shreve See also Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. References and Further Reading Aleshire, Peter. 2001. Cochise: The Life and Times of the Great Apache Chief. New York: John Wiley. Sweeney, Edwin R. 1991. Cochise: Chiricahua Apache Chief. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sweeney, Edwin R., ed. 1997. Making Peace With Cochise: The 1872 Journal of Captain Joseph Alton Sladen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Cohen, Felix S. (1907–1953) Felix Solomon Cohen played an instrumental role in bringing an end to the allotment era and in creating the legal structure for meaningful tribal selfgovernance that continues to be worked out to this day. Cohen is best known as the author of the 1941 Handbook of Federal Indian Law, a pioneering work that insists that Indian tribes possess all aspects of sovereignty except those which Congress has taken away. Additionally, Cohen helped craft two of the most significant pieces of Indian legislation of the twentieth century: the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) and the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 (ICCA). Felix Cohen was hired as assistant solicitor for the Department of the Interior in 1933. He joined John Collier, commissioner of Indian affairs, in working to bring an end to the allotment policies and ushering in Theodore Roosevelt’s New Deal to Indian communities. Originally without experience relating to Native Americans, Cohen began his government service with a strong educational background: a Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard (1929) and a law degree from Columbia (L.L.B. 1931). Cohen’s influ-

www.abc-clio.com

ence and his ability to craft innovative legislation and arguments aiding Indians were partly due to the combination of his educational background and his respected non-Indian scholarship. Cohen’s first task with the Department of the Interior was to draft the Wheeler-Howard Act, which has since become known as the Indian Reorganization Act. Cohen’s IRA aimed to facilitate the development of western-style tribal governments. It allowed tribes to establish governments that would be recognized as such by the U.S. government. Cohen is criticized for his establishment of a corporate structure of tribal governance rather than a more flexible framework that would allow greater adherence to traditional ways of governing. Additionally, the inability to include in the final version of the IRA the consolidation of allotted lands in tribal government hands, due to opposition from allottees, was seen by Cohen as a weakness of the IRA. “Still, from Cohen’s perspective . . . the IRA was an act of liberation,” freeing tribes to begin the work of developing their own strong governments (Dalia 2001). Felix Cohen’s organization of diverse judicial opinions and federal practices into the handbook reflects Cohen’s commitment to legal scholarship, a commitment that incorporates more than merely what judges write by also including a deep understanding of the historical and social background underlying Indian policies. The handbook’s significance, however, extends well beyond this single passage; “in recognition of Cohen’s genius, vision, and hard work,” it was retitled Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law when it was revised in 1982 (Martin 1998–1999, 165–166). Prior to resigning from the Department of the Interior in December 1947, Cohen helped write the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946. Although the ICCA failed to allow tribes to get their land back, and the total dollar amounts available under the ICCA were well below the true damage amounts, the law enabled tribal suits to recover damages for their lost land. Cohen’s last years before his untimely death were spent teaching at Yale Law School and the City College of New York and in private practice, largely working on behalf of Native Americans. Ezra Rosser

ABC-CLIO

See also Collier, John; Government-to-Government Relationship; Indian Claims Commission (ICC); Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946; Indian New Deal; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Sovereignty.

1-800-368-6868

Collier, John

References and Further Reading Cohen, Felix S. 1941. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Repr., Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1971. Cohen, Lucy Kramer, ed. 1960. The Legal Conscience: Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Martin, Jill E. 1998–1999. “The Miner’s Canary: Felix S. Cohen’s Philosophy of Indian Rights,”23 American Indian Law Review 165, 166. Tsuk, Dalia. 2001. “The New Deal Origins of American Legal Pluralism,” 29 Florida State University Law Review 189, 239.

Collier, John (1884–1968) John Collier, commissioner of Indian affairs (1933–1945), is best known as the architect of the Indian New Deal. Collier sought to end the policy of assimilation, instead proposing a culturally plural-

779

istic approach that encouraged ethnic pride and acknowledged the value of Indian cultures to white society. Collier’s most significant legislative achievement was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which abandoned the policy of allotment and provided for the establishment of limited forms of tribal government and property management. Collier’s rejection of assimilation was grounded in his experiences as a social worker in New York in the early twentieth century. Collier believed that the industrial age manifested a breakdown of community values and, concluding that the preservation and nurture of ethnic values was essential to reversing this trend, focused on the development of social and ethnic communities, encouraging ethnic pride, unity, and self-responsibility among local immigrant groups. Collier left New York in 1919, frustrated by the post–World War I drive to “Americanize” immigrants; following a short period as head of California’s adult education program, he relocated to Taos, New Mexico. Here, Collier was introduced to the

John Collier (1884–1968) of Atlanta, Georgia, served as the U.S. Indian Affairs Commissioner from 1933 to 1945. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

780

Cooper, Douglas H.

Indian pueblo at Taos and realized that, in Pueblo culture, he had discovered the embodiment of his utopian vision of a socially integrated, communitycentered ethnic group that provided a template for the redemption of a selfish, materialistic, and fragmented American society. Taking up residence in the colony of writers and artists in Taos, Collier became a prominent member of the crusade to protect and restore Indian culture. Collier was an active opponent of the proposed Bursum Bill, which sought to legislate rights for white squatters on Pueblo lands. The defeat of the Bursum Bill led to the formation in 1923 of the American Indian Defense Association, of which Collier was executive secretary. The association provided legal aid services, opposed allotment, and called for an investigation into and reorganization of the Indian bureau. Many of the association’s proposals were to form the basis for legislation eventually enacted by Collier during his tenure as commissioner of Indian affairs. Collier’s vision of a “New Deal” for American Indians, born out of his utopianism and romanticized view of Pueblo Indians, was intended to preserve Indian cultures by encouraging religious and social freedom, promoting tribal arts and selfgovernment, and restructuring education so that it encouraged rather than suppressed tribal loyalties. Collier was appointed commissioner of Indian affairs on April 21, 1933, and immediately embarked on a radical program of reform. The Board of Indian Commissioners was abolished and replaced with a consultant group of social scientists advising on arts and crafts, education, natural resources, law, and cultural anthropology. The influence of Christian missionaries in Indian day schools and boarding schools was curtailed, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion for American Indians was reaffirmed. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 repealed the policy of allotment and provided for the restoration of tribal political structures and the incorporation and operation of property by tribes. Other reforms implemented by Collier included the preferential hiring of Indian employees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the creation of a revolving credit fund to provide loans for agricultural and educational purposes, and the establishment of the Indian Arts and Craft Board Act. In 1940, Collier attended the Inter-American Conference on Indian Life in Patzcuro, Mexico, a gathering that internationalized the policies of the Indian New Deal and led to the creation of the InterAmerican Indian Institute, of which Collier served as

www.abc-clio.com

president until 1946. Wishing to focus on the development of his international ethnic policies, Collier’s resignation as commissioner of Indian affairs was accepted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 22, 1945. Annie Kirby See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian New Deal; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Meriam Report, 1928. References and Further Reading Collier, John. 1948. Indians of the Americas: The Long Hope. New York: Mentor Books. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books. Holm, Tom. 2005. The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs: Native Americans and Whites in the Progressive Era. Austin: University of Texas Press. Philp, Kenneth R. 1972. “John Collier and the American Indian, 1920–1945.” In Essays on Radicalism in Contemporary America, ed. Leon Borden Blair, 63–80. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.

Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. See Dawes Commission.

Cooper, Douglas H. (1771–1879) Douglas H. Cooper served as U.S. agent to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and played an important role in the negotiation of treaties between those nations and the U.S. government. He was born in Virginia in 1771, a scion of a well-established family with Baptist affiliations. His first foray into public life was when he was licensed to preach in 1793; he went on to establish churches in South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. Upon his father’s death, he became a property owner in Mississippi and studied law. His family home, Mon Clava, was situated on Choctaw land ceded by the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830. He served in the Mexican-American War, distinguishing himself in the battles of Buena Vista and Monterey. He played an active role in Mississippi politics and was rewarded with an appointment as U.S. agent to the Choctaw in 1853.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Cornplanter

In 1855, the Choctaw and Chickasaw negotiated a treaty that was intended to consolidate their outstanding claims against the U.S. government for the fulfillment of treaty provisions and to put their relationship with the federal government on a new footing. To this end, they enlisted the services of Albert Pike, a Washington lawyer, to assist in formulating the treaty language. Pike took the case on a contingency basis for 25 percent of the payment for the lands east of the Mississippi ceded in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Cooper accompanied the Choctaw delegation to Washington and took part in the treaty negotiations. He received a share in the portion of Pike’s fee that he, Cooper, rebated to the Choctaw delegation for the opportunity to represent the tribe. In his role as U.S. agent, Cooper provided a summary of the amount due to the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the new treaty. He also advised the delegation that they could profit by leasing their western lands for the settlement of the Wichita tribe, which Congress was anxious to move out of the way of territorial expansion. The treaty provided for that lease of Choctaw lands west of the 98th meridian. In March 1856, Cooper was appointed U.S. agent for the Chickasaw as well as the Choctaw and was stationed at Fort Washita to serve both tribes. He also oversaw the final payment to Choctaws in Mississippi, who had tried to take land claims in that state under the fourteenth article of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. When the Choctaws received a favorable judgment from Congress in 1859 on their claims under that treaty, Cooper was charged with overseeing the purchase of corn for Choctaws, who were suffering the effects of a major drought in the Choctaw Nation. Cooper’s southern sympathies coincided with those of Choctaw leaders as the United States moved inexorably toward civil war. The Choctaw leadership declared for the Confederacy and signed a treaty with Albert Pike, now the Confederacy’s agent to the tribes of Indian Territory. Cooper raised troops for the Confederacy while still in the service of the U.S. government. He served as an officer in the Confederate army, ultimately serving as commander in charge for the Indian Territory. With the Confederate defeat, the Choctaws had to negotiate yet another treaty to reestablish their relationship with the federal government. Cooper accompanied the Choctaw delegation to Washington, D.C., to negotiate that treaty. He introduced the

www.abc-clio.com

781

delegates to his brother-in-law, John Latrobe, with whom they contracted to serve as their agent in the treaty negotiations. The Choctaw general council approved an advance of $100,000 to Latrobe, and he rebated 5 percent to the Choctaw delegation and to Cooper. Despite his Confederate service, Cooper witnessed the signing of the treaty of 1866 in his capacity as U.S. agent. Douglas Cooper was an active player in treaty negotiations between the Choctaw Nation and the United States in 1855. He profited from rebates of lawyers’ fees to facilitate that treaty. He was a key figure in the Confederate government’s relations with the tribes in Indian Territory during the Civil War, and he profited again from the negotiations surrounding the treaty of 1866. As an agent of the U.S. government, he worked as much for his own selfinterest he did for the Choctaw whose interests he was charged to protect. He died at Old Fort Washita on April 30, 1879. Clara Sue Kidwell See also Indian Territory; Opothleyahola; Pike, Albert; Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chicasaw, Creek, and Seminole–1866. References and Further Reading Abel, Annie Heloise. 1992. The American Indian in the Civil War, 1862–1865. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cottrell, Steve, and Andy Thomas. 1995. Civil War in Indian Territory. New York: Pelican. Fischer, LeRoy. 1974. The Civil War Era in Indian Territory. Los Angeles: Lorin L. Morrison. Spencer, John. 2006. The American Civil War in Indian Territory. Oxford: Osprey. Taylor, Ethel Crisp. 2005. Dust in the Wind: The Civil War in Indian Territory. Westminster, MD: Heritage Books. Wright, Muriel H. 1954. “General Douglas H. Cooper, C.S.A.” The Chronicles of Oklahoma, 32(9): 142–184.

Cornplanter (c. 1730–1836) Known as Kaintwakon by his people, Cornplanter was born to his Seneca mother and Dutch trader father sometime between the mid-1730s and the early 1750s. Although he was raised by his mother’s people as a Seneca and apparently never learned to speak English, Cornplanter would become an

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

782

Cornplanter

Seneca sachem Cornplanter (c. 1730–1836) took part in negotiating the treaties signed at Fort Stanwix in 1784 and Fort Harmar in 1789. However, he did not actually sign either document. He died at Cornplantertown, Pennsylvania, in 1836, perhaps more than 100 years old. (Getty Images)

important diplomat and maker of peace between the Iroquois and the English. Information on Cornplanter’s youth is sketchy, but evidence suggests he fought as a skilled and respected young warrior against the British in the French and Indian War. Some scholars place him specifically at the defeat of British general Edward Braddock in 1755. By the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Cornplanter had assumed an important position among the Seneca. At first, both the British and American rebels urged the Iroquois Confederacy to remain neutral in the conflict, but secretly both sides hoped to obtain Indian assistance for their cause. Eventually, the British gave promises of goods and rum to the confederacy in exchange for an alliance. As was the practice, representatives of the Six Nations met to discuss this possibility at Oswego, New York, in July 1777. Cornplanter and his uncle Kiasutha were the representatives for their group, the Chenussio Senecas. Although both men resisted the alliance at first, they eventually agreed and led an attack on the Americans at Fort Stanwix. By the time the Revolution was over, Cornplanter was a principle war chief of the Seneca and a respected warrior and field commander. When the British lost the war, however, Cornplanter immedi-

www.abc-clio.com

ately advocated cooperation with the new American nation. To Cornplanter, the British had made false promises and then abandoned their allies to the enemy. Survival would now depend on working with the United States and giving up what he considered the foolish resistance of other Iroquois such as Red Jacket. In 1784, Cornplanter agreed to large land cessions in exchange for peace with the United States in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix. The Fort Harmar Treaty in 1789 ceded even more Iroquois land, and Cornplanter’s support of both treaties made him unpopular among some of the less conciliatory Senecas. However, Cornplanter continued to work for peace and accommodation with the United States, which he believed necessary to preserve his people. In the early 1790s, Cornplanter served as a mediator between Indians and the Americans. In 1791, President George Washington sent Cornplanter to negotiate peace between the Indians of Michigan and Ohio and the United States. Although unsuccessful, Cornplanter did manage to keep the Iroquois out of the conflicts. He began to travel to various cities in the Northeast to talk about his people and their needs. In 1797, Cornplanter signed another treaty, ceding more land to a private land company. In exchange for his cooperation, the State of Pennsylvania granted him private ownership of about fifteen hundred acres. Although he eventually lost two-thirds of the land, he did maintain ownership of 750 acres. Red Jacket and others who refused to sign the cession considered Cornplanter a traitor to his people. Cornplanter believed, however, that the Seneca needed to adapt to American ways in order to survive. During some of his travels as an emissary of peace, Cornplanter met with and was very impressed with the Quakers in Pennsylvania. He admired their teachings of peace and sent his oldest son to a Quaker school. Eventually, in 1798, Cornplanter invited the Quakers to come and teach his people, to build schools and missions. However, Cornplanter eventually became very disillusioned with the United States and felt ashamed of his accommodationist policies. Sometime after the War of 1812, according to some accounts, he publicly burned his military uniform, destroyed his medals, and ordered all the missionaries out of his land. In his later years, he advocated a return to Seneca traditions and rejection of white ways. This change of heart helped him regain the respect of those Seneca who felt he had betrayed them in the past. He died in 1836

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Costo, Rupert

at his home. His descendants continued to live on what was known as the Cornplanter Tract until the completion of the Kinzua Dam in 1964, which placed the entire tract under water. Today, Cornplanter is remembered as an important peacemaker and leader of the Seneca people. Even though his cooperation with the United States and land cessions led to significant losses for his people, the Iroquois and Seneca now remember and respect his role as mediator and celebrate the spirit of peace with which he lived his life. April R. Summitt See also Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789; Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix–November 5, 1768. References and Further Reading Abler, Thomas S. 1989. Chainbreaker: The Revolutionary War Memoirs of Governor Blacksnake. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Deardorff, Merle H., and Harold L. Myers. 1994. Chief Cornplanter. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Francello, Joseph A. 1998. Chief Cornplanter of the Senecas. Allentown, PA: Glasco. Swatzler, David, and Henry Simmons. 2000. A Friend among the Senecas: The Quaker Mission to Cornplanter’s People. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Symes, Martha. 1995. “Cornplanter.” In Notable Native Americans, ed. Sharon Malinowski. New York: Gale Research.

Costo, Rupert (1906–1989) From the 1930s to the 1950s, Rupert Costo, a Cahuilla, was active in national and tribal politics, serving both as a vocal critic of the Indian New Deal in the 1930s and as tribal chairman of the Cahuillas in the 1950s; later, Costo became an important figure in Native American publishing. As a football player in the 1920s at Haskell Institute and Whittier College (where he played with future president Richard M. Nixon), Rupert Costo early in life demonstrated his athletic and intellectual aptitudes to the Indian and non-Indian world. During the 1930s, California was a major center of opposition to Collier’s Indian New Deal, and Costo was one of the principal leaders of the opposition. Costo believed that the Indian New Deal was a device to assimilate the American Indian; he believed that the Indian Reorganization Act was being used to colo-

www.abc-clio.com

783

nize Native Americans because, in his view, genocide, treaty making and treaty breaking, substandard education, disruption of Indian culture and religion, and the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) had failed. Costo knew that partial assimilation already had taken place in Native societies through the use of “certain technologies and techniques,” but he knew that total assimilation, which meant fading into the general society with a complete loss of culture and identity, was another thing altogether. Costo called the IRA “the Indian Raw Deal” (Mails 1990, 146). For most of his working life, Costo was employed by the state of California as an engineer in the Highway Department. Upon his retirement, Costo and his wife, Jeannette Henry Costo (eastern Cherokee), founded the San Francisco-based American Indian Historical Society in 1964. The organization was often in the forefront of American Indian issues, such as the protection of American Indian cemeteries and American Indian human remains, as well as the correction of American Indian textbooks. The Costos sought to develop publications that accurately reflected the historical role of Indians in American society. Initially, the American Indian Historical Society published three journals: Wassaja, a national Indian newspaper; The Indian Historian, a respected academic journal; and the Weewish Tree, a national magazine for young Indian people. Rupert Costo coedited all three publications with his wife. In 1970, the society founded another publication arm, the Indian Historian Press, an American Indiancontrolled publishing house that published fifty-two titles. Some of the well-known titles were Textbooks and the American Indian (1970; Rupert Costo, ed.) and The Iroquois and the Founding of the American Nation (1977; Donald A. Grinde, Jr. [Yamasee]). Through his editorial column in Wassaja, Costo advocated increased sovereignty for Native rights. He also worked tirelessly for the protection of American Indian civil, social, and religious rights. At the end of his life, Costo endowed the Rupert Costo Chair in American Indian History at the University of California, Riverside. Costo and his wife also established the Costo Library of the American Indian at the University of California, Riverside, one of the most comprehensive collections of American Indian books in the United States. In 1994, the University of California, Riverside, renamed its Student Services Building Costo Hall in honor of the outstanding contributions of both Costos to the university. Bruce E. Johansen

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

784

Crazy Horse (Ta∫unka Witko)

See also Alcatraz Occupation 1973; Sovereignty; Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation. References and Further Reading Johansen, Bruce E. 2005. Native North America: A History. Westport, CT: Praeger. Champagne, Duane and Jay Stauss, eds. Native American Studies in Higher Education: Models for Collaboration between Universities and Indigenous Nations. Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, and Oxford: Atlamira Press.

Crazy Horse (Ta∫unka Witko) (c. 1840–1877) Crazy Horse was an Oglala Lakota leader of armed resistance to U.S. encroachment upon tribal lands, and he is a symbol of independence among contemporary American Indians. He was born around 1840 in South Dakota to an Oglala Lakota father, who was also named Crazy Horse, and a Miniconjou Lakota mother called Rattling Blanket Woman. The family included a sister, whose name is unknown, and a half brother, Little Hawk. Crazy Horse may have witnessed the Grattan Massacre of 1854, in which Lieutenant John L. Grattan and his thirty-man command were killed during an unprovoked attack on a Lakota village near Fort Laramie, Wyoming. This event is often cited as pivotal in the formation of his negative perception of non-Indians and their intentions. Crazy Horse’s bravery in war with the United States and other tribes (principally the Crow and Shoshone) earned him high status, and in 1865 he was declared a “shirt wearer” (leader) among his people. During the Red Cloud War (1866–1868), he fought along the Bozeman Trail, which cut across Lakota territory from Wyoming to Montana’s gold fields. He served as one of the decoy riders who led Captain William Fetterman’s eighty-man command out of Fort Phil Kearny into a devastating ambush known as the Fetterman Massacre (December 21, 1866) and participated in the Hayfield and WagonBox fights the following year. In 1870, Crazy Horse eloped with Black Buffalo Woman, wife of a Lakota named No Water. During a confrontation between the two men, No Water shot Crazy Horse in the face with a pistol. Crazy Horse lost his shirt-wearer position as a result of this scandal; around the same time, whites killed his halfbrother Little Hawk. Within a year, Crazy Horse

www.abc-clio.com

married Black Shawl, mother of his only child, a daughter called They Are Afraid of Her, who died around 1874, possibly a cholera victim. When the government set a deadline of January 31, 1876, for Lakotas to report to reservations, Crazy Horse joined Sitting Bull in defying the order. When the army launched an offensive against “hostiles,” Crazy Horse provided leadership in two epic Montana battles: he helped defeat General George Crook at the Battle of Rosebud (June 17), and he crushed Lieutenant Colonel George Custer ’s 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Bighorn (June 25). These victories proved Pyrrhic, for the army relentlessly pursued Lakotas through the winter of 1876–1877. On May 8, 1877, Crazy Horse and his followers surrendered at Fort Robinson, Nebraska. Crazy Horse never mastered the subtleties of Lakota politics, but he appeared to accept the inevitable and during his brief stint as a reservation dweller married Nellie Larrabee (or Laravie), the daughter of a French trader and a Cheyenne or Lakota woman. On September 5, 1877, unaware that a decision had been made to place him under arrest, Crazy Horse appeared at Fort Robinson to dispel rumors about whether he intended to remain a government opponent. Indians and soldiers escorted him to the guardhouse where, suddenly realizing he faced imprisonment, Crazy Horse pulled back from the doorway. A fracas broke out, and a soldier stabbed Crazy Horse in the back with his bayonet. That night, Crazy Horse died. During his life, many of Crazy Horse’s contemporaries viewed him as an inspiring, albeit enigmatic, leader of their resistance to foreign domination. After his death, Crazy Horse was transformed into the leading figure in a tragedy in which the visionary hero is doomed to suffer martyrdom, a victim of the malevolent machinations of oppressors from outside his culture and collaborationist traitors from within. Given the time that has elapsed and the fact that he came from a culture that maintained records through drawings and oral history, separating the Crazy Horse of historic reality from the Crazy Horse of hagiography seems an impossible task. Ron McCoy

ABC-CLIO

See also Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta); Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851.

1-800-368-6868

Crowfoot

References and Further Reading Hardorff, Richard G., ed. 1998. The Death of Crazy Horse: A Tragic Episode in Lakota History. Spokane, WA: Arthur H. Clark. Riley, Paul D., ed. 1976. “Oglala Sources on the Life of Crazy Horse: Interviews Given to Eleanor H. Hinman.” Nebraska History, 57 (Spring): 1–51; also in The Nebraska Indian Wars Reader 1865–1877, ed. Eli S. Paul. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998, 180–216. Sandoz, Mari. 1942. Crazy Horse: The Strange Man of the Oglalas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Crowfoot (c. 1830–1890) Crowfoot is considered by many to be the greatest warrior and peacemaker in the story of the settlement of western Canada, and he is perhaps best known for his belief that he and his people could live peaceably alongside white men. Yet Crowfoot’s reign as chief occurred during a tumultuous period highlighted by the Blackfoot’s removal from traditional territories, forcing the complete transformation of their lifestyle. Born in 1830 to Blood Indians Istowun-eh’pata (Packs a Knife) and Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked Toward Home), Crowfoot’s father died during a horse raid against the Crow when Crowfoot was still a boy. Upon returning to Packs a Knife’s camp, Crowfoot’s mother fell in love with a Blackfoot warrior, Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names); following their marriage, she and her two sons were adopted by the Blackfoot. Crowfoot managed to survive epidemics of diphtheria (1836) and smallpox (1837) and, as a young man, earned a reputation as a warrior and leader following a series of daring raids. Wounded six times in nineteen battles, he also gained the admiration of his own and neighboring communities for single-handedly killing a grizzly bear and for his skills as an orator. Crowfoot took ten wives during his life, securing his position in Blackfoot society, although only four of his children reached maturity. When his son was killed by a Cree war party, he adopted Pitokanow-apiwin (“Poundmaker”), a Cree who shared his father’s belief in working for peace with nonNative settlers, a peace accomplished mainly through the establishment of commercial relationships with Hudson’s Bay Company employees. Trading guns, iron kettles, beads, and woollens for buffalo hides, horses, and dried meats, Crowfoot

www.abc-clio.com

785

regularly interacted with white settlers until the time of his death. By the early 1870s, however, encroachment of westward-moving settlers had reached levels significant enough to disturb Blackfoot social and economic patterns. The introduction of whiskey, smuggled across the international border by American traders, also had a disastrous effect upon the Blackfoot, leading to alcohol-induced internal feuds. Responding to western concerns, politicians in Ottawa dispatched the Northwest Mounted Police in 1873 to aid in defusing the situation and to establish a paramilitary presence in the West. The arrival of the Mounties resulted in the removal of whiskey peddlers, although this was followed by an influx of settlers, which in turn forced the initiation of treaty negotiations. Acting as the Blackfoot’s main chief, Crowfoot was one of a coalition of chiefs to negotiate and sign Treaty 7 in September 1877, which formalized the BlackfootCanadian government relationship. The Crowfootled Blackfoot Confederacy ceded fifty thousand acres of traditional territory in return for tracts of reserve land considered impervious to settler encroachment and a variety of provisions including but not limited to a yearly stipend, rations, police protection from American bootleggers, ammunition, and rations. Crowfoot was also commended by Queen Victoria of England for his refusal to ally with Sioux leader Sitting Bull during the wars between the Plains Indians and the U.S. Cavalry. Despite government promises to aid in protecting the Blackfoot traditional lifestyle, soon after signing Treaty 7 Crowfoot and his people faced starvation and for several winters chose to reside in Montana in search of buffalo. Upon their return to Canada and their allotted reserves, Crowfoot and his people did their best to survive on government rations and hunting. In spite of such hardships, Crowfoot resisted joining forces with Métis leader Louis Riel, who attempted to form a provisional government in 1885, although the Blackfoot leader did instruct his people to assist Cree or Métis rebels passing through their territory. Crowfoot’s choice appeared apt in hindsight, considering the rebellion’s demise. In his later years, Crowfoot watched helplessly from the confines of his reserve as the Blackfoot were reduced from great buffalo hunters of the northwest plains to dependency upon the Canadian government for their survival. Crowfoot became an intermediary, working with the federal government in an attempt to improve the condition of his people,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

786

Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes)

traveling to Montreal and Ottawa to meet with government officials and the prime minister, only to return home to and die in his tipi on April 5, 1890. Yale D. Belanger See also Black Kettle; Canadian Indian Treaty 7–September 22, December 4, 1877; Métis; Riel, Louis; Sovereignty; Trust. References and Further Reading Champagne, Duane. 1994. Native America: Portrait of the Peoples. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. Dempsey, Hugh. 1989. Crowfoot: Chief of the Blackfeet. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Waldman, Carl. 1990. Who Was Who in Native American History. New York: Facts on File.

Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes) The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, popularly known as the Dawes Commission, worked in Indian Territory between 1893 and 1906 to further the U.S. policy of allotment and assimilation. All removal treaties made in the 1830s with the nations that became known as the Five Civilized Tribes—Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Chickasaw, and Seminole—guaranteed that the new land titles in Indian Territory would be perpetual and that no government would ever be forced upon them. After the Civil War, the Five Civilized Tribes ceded half their territory. The ceded portion was partially used for repatriating western tribes, and the rest was opened to white settlers in 1889. In large part due to the “openings,” a steady stream of white and black settlers moved into the territory and established towns over which tribal governments had no authority. By 1890, there were ap proximately 70,000 tribal citizens and between 140,000 and 250,000 nontribal residents (estimates vary). The territory remaining to the Five Civilized Tribes included valuable agricultural and timber lands, extensive coalfields, and gold deposits, which citizens developed. Each tribe had its own constitution and infrastructure, including a school system, a general council, and a system of courts. Some became wealthy, whereas others lost control over their land due to intermarriage or leasing to noncitizens. All tribes, however, practiced communal land tenure and limited the size of holdings and leasing practices. Until 1890, the federal government hesitated to

www.abc-clio.com

break pledges it had made with the Five Civilized Tribes. In 1869, the newly formed Board of Indian Commissioners recommended that communal land tenure be replaced by individual ownership. Cultural assimilation was the goal. Even reformers who had recently advocated that all treaties be honored followed suit in calling for allotment and assimilation, including the most influential campaigner for this bill, Senator Henry Dawes. The Dawes Severalty Act was passed in 1887. It provided for individual allotments to Native Americans out of reservation lands; so-called surplus land would revert to the government. The Five Civilized Tribes were not exempt from the Dawes Act, but they were not exempt from the policy; the Dawes Commission was established in 1893 (27 Stat. 645) to carry out the policy among them. President Grover Cleveland appointed Henry Dawes, Meredith H. Kidd, and Archibald S. McKennon as its original commissioners. The work of the Dawes Commission was slow for the first few years. The tribes resisted by organizing international councils to establish policy, appointing tribal commissions, and otherwise struggling to safeguard their cultures. In 1894, the Cherokee National Council wrote a response to the Dawes Commission annual report and traveled to Washington, D.C., to present their arguments before Congress. In 1895, a reconstituted Dawes Commission asked Congress to impose a territorial form of government on Indian Territory. Congress declined, but in 1895 the commission was given the authority to survey tribal lands and determine citizenship status. After three years of publishing annual reports, appearing before congressional committees, and giving public speeches inside and outside of Indian Territory, the commission brought the Choctaws to the bargaining table, and an agreement was signed in 1896. Due to these factors as well as to pressure exerted by the railroad companies, resistance to the Dawes Commission further softened in 1897. The Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations had signed by 1898. A big blow to tribal autonomy came in 1898, when the Curtis Act effectively ended tribal governance by abolishing tribal courts and enforcing allotment. It also stipulated the creation of an authoritative citizenship roll that became known as the Dawes Roll. After the tribal officials were deprived of authority by the Curtis Act, the Cherokee Nation was forced to enter negotiations with the Dawes

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dawes, Henry Laurens

787

Commission. In 1902, an agreement was ratified, and the rolls closed with approximately forty-five thousand names listed. Each enrollee was entitled to forty acres of average land, inalienable and nontaxable for up to twenty-one years, and an additional amount of land equaling $325.60. Cherokee tribal government was terminated in 1906, and the next year Oklahoma became a state. The work of the Dawes Commission did more than break up a system of communal land tenure; it destroyed the often-fragile connections that held tribes together. As a result, a class structure definitively replaced tribal social structures. In the 1970s, the Dawes Roll, which had played such a crucial part in dissolving the tribes, was used to build them up again. Deborah Gilbert See also Allotments; Curtis Act, 1898; Dawes, Henry Laurens; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Jackson, Andrew; Trail of Tears. References and Further Reading Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gibson, Arrell M. 1978. “Indian Land Transfers.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, ed. William C. Sturtevant, 211–229. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Hagan, William T. 1978. “United States Indian Policies, 1860–1900.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, ed. William C. Sturtevant, 51–65. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Wardell, Morris L. 1938. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation: 1838–1907. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Dawes, Henry Laurens (1816–1903) Henry Laurens Dawes lived during a time of great change and development in the early period of the United States. The nineteenth century was also a time of confusing changes for the Indians in this country. The non-Indian population was growing rapidly and pushing westward. The desire for more farmland, the discovery and exploitation of rich natural resources, the discovery of silver and gold in the West, and the building of the transcontinental railroad were all factors pressuring the young government to open up to everyone the hundreds of millions of acres on the Indian reservations.

www.abc-clio.com

Senator Henry L. Dawes (1816–1903) of Massachusetts served as chairman of the Dawes Commission and he supported the General Allotment Act of 1887. (Library of Congress)

Henry L. Dawes was born in Cummington, Massachusetts, on October 30, 1816, the son of a farmer, Mitchell Dawes, and Mercy Burgess. He graduated from Yale in 1839. His first position after graduation was in teaching. In 1841, he taught at the Sanderson Academy, an girls’ school in Ashfield, Massachusetts. It was here that he met his future wife, Electa Allen Sanderson, a student at the academy and six years his junior. His next undertaking was as editor of the Greenfield Gazette; later, he edited the Adams Transcript in Greenfield. During this time, he also studied law in the firm of Wells and Davis. He was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1842. Henry and Electa were married in Ashfield on April 12, 1844, and settled in North Adams. They lived in North Adams for twenty years before moving to Pittsfield, their final home. Dawes went into private law practice for a few years and in 1848 was elected to the Massachusetts State House of Representatives. He was reelected in 1849 and 1852. He served in the State Senate in 1850 and was a member of the state constitutional convention of 1853. He was district attorney for the western district of Massachusetts from 1853 to 1857 and served as a Republican member of the House of

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

788

De La Cruz, Joseph Burton

Representatives from 1857 to 1875 and Senator from 1875 to 1893. While in the House, he served on several committees: Ways and Means, Appropriations, and Elections. While in the Senate, he served on numerous committees, including the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, as a member of which he was instrumental in the completion of the Washington Monument, and the Committee on Indian Affairs. During most of the nineteenth century, many members in Congress and people throughout the country felt that it would be in the Indians’ best interests to be brought into mainstream society. This, they felt, could only be done by breaking up the tribal affiliations and the reservations. Dawes was a great proponent of this strategy because he thought it was the most humanitarian solution for the Indians, who would then become self-sufficient farmers on their allotted lands and assimilate into the “civilized” society, and, in time, the reservation system would disappear altogether. The surplus land could then be sold for agrarian use and other development. Several attempts at this had failed, when in 1879 Senator Richard Coke of Texas introduced yet another allotment bill to Congress. Although not successful at first, the bill was finally passed in 1887 as the General Allotment Act, or the Dawes Severalty Act after Henry L. Dawes, who sponsored it at the time of passage. The fact that Coke introduced this bill is all but forgotten. Dawes retired from the Senate in 1893, but his retirement was short lived. Two years later, in 1895, President Grover Cleveland appointed him chairman of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, which became known as the Dawes Commission. The Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Choctaw, and Seminole) were initially exempt from the General Allotment Act of 1887 because of their unyielding opposition to it, but now the government insisted on breaking up their tribal governments and lands too. Dawes was chairman of the commission for ten years, until the time of his death. His wife, Electa, died on April 15, 1901; Henry died on February 5, 1903, at the age of 86. The Daweses had five children, only three of whom survived to adulthood: Anna Laurens, born in 1851; Chester Mitchell, born in 1855; and Henry Laurens, born in 1863. Both of Dawes’s sons became lawyers; Chester settled in Chicago, Illinois, and Henry remained in Pittsfield. Anna also lived out her days in Pittsfield, where she wrote several books, includ-

www.abc-clio.com

ing a biography of Senator Charles Sumner in 1892. She died in 1938. It was Anna who donated her father’s papers to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Gayle Yiotis See also Assimilation; Dawes Commission; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887. References and Further Reading Dawes, Henry Laurens. Papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Repr., New York: Gordian Press, 1966. Howes, Frederick G. 1910. History of the Town of Ashfield, Franklin County, Massachusetts from its Settlement in 1742 to 1910. Ashfield, MA: Town of Ashfield. Hoxie, Frederick E. 1984. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. McDonnell, Janet A. The Dispossession of the American Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Moore, William F. 1898. Representative Men of Massachusetts, 1890–1900. Everett: Massachusetts Publishing. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1930. Fifteenth Census of the United States. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

De La Cruz, Joseph Burton (1937–2000) Born in 1937, Joseph De La Cruz became one of the leading American Indian activists in the United States. He was particularly concerned with the white exploitation of native-owned resources within the boundaries of reservation lands. On his own tribal lands, De La Cruz became well known for pulling his truck onto a bridge to prevent logging trucks from crossing over onto reservation lands. He did this to protest the misuse of tribal lands by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the profit of logging companies and to protect tribal rights to the lumber, shellfish, and other fishing industries, an act that later led to compensation paid to the Quinault tribe for their lumber. De La Cruz served as president of the Quinault Nation from 1970–1994 on the 211,000 acres of Wash-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dearborn, Henry

ington State’s rainforest region. He was also president of the National Congress of American Indians from 1980 until 1985, president of the National Tribal Chairman’s Association, and president of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; he also served in many other native rights and health organizations. He was the recipient of the Chief George Manuel Leadership Award and was the first person to hold the distinguished Joe Tallakson Chair for Public Policy at the Center for World Indigenous Studies, which he held from 1998 to 2000. With Bruce Babbitt, former attorney general of Arizona and secretary of the interior, De La Cruz was co-chair of the National Council on Tribal State Relations; with former governor Daniel J. Evans, he served as co-chair of the Northwest Renewable Resource Center; and he was the North American representative to the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. De La Cruz’s major concerns were environmental, health, and sovereignty issues among all American Indian nations. He was a staunch supporter of the effort to educate the American public about treaties between American Indian tribes and the U.S. government, and he called for reform in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (which is the oldest federal agency in the United States). He also supported the education of natives and non-natives alike about the cultural aspects of Native Americans. De La Cruz was one of three Indian leaders in the formation of the First Americans Education Project. During a 1989 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 76, De La Cruz addressed such major concerns as the public’s need for education on American Indian treaties, governments, and cultures; a government-to-government policy that promoted tribal self-government and tribal selfsufficiency; and the need for American Indian tribal governments, the U.S. government, and Congress to work together to restructure the federal administration of Indian affairs. These were items that he addressed many times in governmental hearings. He was not always revered by everyone. He often clashed with Washington senator Slade Gorton, Republican chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, on Indian spending. Joseph Burton De La Cruz was an activist until the end. On April 6, 2000, he was waiting at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for a flight to Oklahoma to speak at a Native Health Conference, when he suddenly had a massive heart attack. He died of this heart attack at the age of sixty-two. He left behind his wife, Dorothy; their three daughters,

www.abc-clio.com

789

Gayle, Tina, and Lisa; and two sons, Joe and Steve. At the time of his passing, he had seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Not only the family mourned his loss but the entire state of Washington, as well as all Native Americans the world over. The Seattle Times reported his funeral as attended by “ . . . a pageant of Pacific Northwest tribal and political leaders.” About fifteen hundred people attended the funeral services, which were held in the soon-to-be-opened Ocean Shores Casino. De La Cruz had been instrumental in putting together the package deal for the Quinault Nation. He was buried at Inchelium, the Colville Indian reservation where his wife Dorothy was born (Eskenazi 2000). Dorothy De La Cruz, Joseph’s wife, continues to marshal support for Native American causes. In September 2002, she led the first mile in the crosscountry relay race Sovereignty Run, which began in Taholah, Washington, and ended at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to bring to light the unjust Court decisions against Native tribes. Priscilla MacDonald See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974; Government-to-Government Relationship; Sovereignty. References and Further Reading Eskenazi, Stuart. “Northwest Tribes, Leaders Honor a Warrior of Wisdom.” Seattle Times, April 23, 2000. Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne, eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Olson, Ronald. 1936. The Quinault Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Parman, Donald L. 1984. “Inconsistency Advocacy: The Erosion of Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest, 1933–1956.” Pacific Historical Review, 53 (May): 163–189.

Dearborn, Henry (1751–1829) Henry Dearborn was a physician, a Revolutionary War veteran, a U.S. marshal for the District of Maine, a U.S. congressman, a secretary of war, a War of 1812 veteran, and a minister to Portugal. Henry Dearborn is a relatively obscure figure in American history. Although his career as an officer in the American Revolution was fairly distinguished,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

790

Dearborn, Henry

Henry Dearborn (1751–1829) was a distinguished veteran of the American Revolution who later served capably as the nation’s secretary of war during the Thomas Jefferson and James Madison administrations (1801–1809), which oversaw Indian affairs during that time. (Library of Congress)

his tenure as secretary of war under President Thomas Jefferson and his subsequent service in the War of 1812 cast a pall on his reputation. With a New Hampshire ancestry dating back to 1639, Dearborn was born in North Hampton, on February 23, 1751. He was educated as a physician and, at twenty-four years of age, had an established practice by the outset of the Revolutionary War. Elected captain of the sixty-man militia unit he had organized in 1772, he fought at the rail fence at Bunker Hill (Breed’s Hill). His experience in the war included a steady rise through the officers’ ranks. He was involved in most of the major operations of the war, including action against the Iroquois Confederation (Six Nations) and the Battle of Yorktown. He was taken prisoner at Quebec, held for a year, and finally released. He served under most of the well-known officers, including General George Washington, from whom his regiment earned a commendation. After a brief stint as the U.S. marshal for the District of Maine (1790), Dearborn served two undistinguished terms (1793–1797) representing Mass-

www.abc-clio.com

achusetts in the House of Representatives as a Republican. Dearborn began his service as secretary of war under President Thomas Jefferson in March 1801. At this time, matters concerning Indians rested with the War Department, and the Jefferson administration’s policy regarding Indian affairs was one of accommodation and appeasement, which, it was hoped, would end in civilization through acculturation. To this end, there were two approaches: The first was to teach the Indians to use land as whites did, through individual ownership, agriculture, and skilled trades, as a function of which they would soon become civilized—and even intermarry with whites. Given failure or dissatisfaction with this approach, the second approach was voluntary removal, in which the Indians would trade eastern land for some of the newly acquired wilderness west of the Mississippi. Dearborn appeared to share a belief in this philosophy and attempted to do what was required. During his tenure, thirty-one formal treaties were negotiated, in at least two of which Dearborn was the principal negotiator. However, those upon whom he depended, some of whom were working diligently to promulgate war with Europe, diverted Dearborn’s attention. For example, James J. Wilkinson, commanding general of the western frontier and governor of Upper Louisiana, was involved with the expensive and ill-fated 1806 Red River expedition, which caused embarrassment to Jefferson and nearly drew Americans into war with Spain. Next was William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, whose military and political ambitions helped to escalate the animosity between Americans and the confederation of tribes enlisted by Tecumseh (Shawnee), still in alliance with the British. Occupying Dearborn’s attention further was the continuing political divisiveness over ties with the French. In March 1809, Dearborn resigned, as the newly elected president, James Madison, took office. In January 1812, Madison appointed Dearborn senior major general in command of the Army’s northeast sector, from the Niagara River east to the New England coast. Unfortunately, the years he had spent in Washington—depending on diplomatic solutions to end conflict—resulted in his inability to function effectively in a military capacity. As critics have noted, he was unfit for command both psychologically and physically. His inability to control his troops, his overcautious behavior, his patience with futile negotiation processes, and his ill health (result-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Deer, Ada E.

791

ing from obesity, which demanded the use of a specially designed cart) have all been cited as reasons for the losses of Detroit and several other forts in the Great Lakes region to the British. Unlike his subordinate, General William Hull, commander of Fort Detroit, he was spared a court martial (possibly through political favoritism) and was reassigned to administrative command in New York before being honorably discharged in 1815. Dearborn married three times: to Mary Barlett (1771), to Dorcas Marble (1780), and to Sarah Bowdoin (1813). His last public service was as U.S. ambassador to Portugal (1822–1824). Henry Dearborn died on June 6, 1829, at his home in Roxbury, Massachusetts. Deborah Rubenstein See also Assimilation; Jefferson, Thomas; Harrison, William Henry; Indian Removal; Tecumseh. References and Further Reading Lavender, David. 1998. The Fist in the Wilderness. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sheehan, Bernard W. 1974. Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian. New York: W.W. Norton. Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1999. Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Deer, Ada E. (1935–) Ada Elizabeth Deer was born August 7, 1935, in the town of Keshena on the Menominee Indian Reservation in northeastern Wisconsin. She grew up in a one-room log cabin on the banks of the Wolf River, where she and her family spent the next eighteen years without the benefit of running water and electricity. In this natural environment, Deer, aided by her mother, developed her lifelong commitment to public service. Her mother, Constance Stockton (Wood) Deer is of Scottish-English descent and worked as a registered nurse for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Deer’s father, Joseph Deer, was a Menominee Indian who worked at the Menominee Indian Mills. He died January 10, 1994, at the age of eighty-five. Both were members of the Rightfully Enrolled Menominee Indians (REMI), an organization that opposed the government’s termination policy of the 1950s. The goal of termination was to withdraw federal support to tribal governments, to end Indians

www.abc-clio.com

A Native American rights activist noted for her fight in overturning the Menominee Termination Act of 1954, Ada Deer (1935–) was appointed as the first woman assistant secretary of the Department of Interior for Indian affairs in 1993. (Corbis)

tribes’ status as sovereign nations, and to assimilate them into the American mainstream. The Menominee were among a handful of Indian tribes that the government considered sufficiently prosperous to terminate. Congress passed the Menominee Termination Act in 1954. By 1961, the act was fully in effect. It was the year Deer received a master’s degree in social work from Columbia University, the first Native American to obtain the honor. The next decade of her life was spent laying the foundation for what was to become one of the defining moments of her life. While her tribe was falling inevitably into poverty, Deer was gaining valuable experience serving as a social worker, Peace Corps volunteer, and BIA service coordinator. Other service assignments eventually led to the study of law. But after one semester at the University of WisconsinMadison Law School, Deer was compelled to withdraw so that she could aid in her people’s survival. Returning to Menominee County (formerly the Menominee Indian Reservation), Deer and others organized a grassroots movement to regain control

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

792

Deloria, Vine, Jr.

of tribal interests from Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), a corporation formed to administer tribal resources. Deer had become involved in 1969, when she and her siblings, Bob and Connie, became concerned over the sale of ancestral lands to pay down rising tribal debt. When a request by Deer to MEI president George Kenote asking for a breakdown of one of the corporation’s land sales was met by resistance, the family realized the need for legal assistance. A call by Deer to Wisconsin Judicare, a Madison-based legal service agency funded by the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), fortunately resulted in free legal representation. The agency’s director, Joseph Preloznik, met with Deer and her family and agreed to begin an investigation into MEI, the land sale, and other tribal problems. But even before this initial meeting, tribal members, uncomfortable with what they felt were actions injurious to the Menominee, were gathering in groups in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Menominee County. During this time, Ada Deer was active in organizing Milwaukee area Menominee tribal members. She enlisted a Menominee art student, John Gauthier, to help arrange the first meeting. Deer’s friends Louise Kitchkume and Georgianna Ignace and anthropologist Nancy Lurie played important roles in the early days of the movement. Spring of 1970 witnessed the coalescence of the Menominee as an independent political entity. Deer’s sister, Connie, was responsible for the group’s name, Determination of the Rights and Unity of Menominee Shareholders (DRUMS). DRUMS’ significance was enhanced by its members, who were better educated and more politically sophisticated than in prior efforts. Early action by the group often was met with strong opposition. MEI mill hands were deputized to disrupt the first meeting held in Menominee County. Death threats were placed on the cars of tribal members in attendance. Fortunately, Judicare was there to protect the group’s First Amendment rights and its right to peaceful assembly. By the summer of 1970, DRUMS was a formidable force in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Menominee County. Led by Deer, James White and others in the organization capitalized on the social protest movements of the 1970s. A “March for Justice,” a letterwriting campaign, and a tribal meeting to discuss the issue were among the strategies DRUMS implemented. As a result of organized protests against the real estate venture, DRUMS members gained seats on the MEI Board of Directors. By 1972, the project

www.abc-clio.com

was dead. DRUMS’ major goal, the reversal of termination, was achieved a year later. A sympathetic president, Richard Nixon, came out against termination. Congress passed legislation to restore their tribal status. On December 22, 1973, President Nixon signed the bill ending the disastrous experiment. Charles W. Buckner See also Federally Recognized Tribes; House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953; Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968; Nonrecognized Tribes; Termination; Watkins, Arthur V. References and Further Reading Bataille, Gretchen M., ed. 1993. Native American Women. New York: Garland. Ourada, Patricia K. 1979. The Menominee Indians: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Peroff, Nicholas C. 1982. Menominee Drums: Tribal Termination and Restoration, 1954–1974. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. (1933–2005) In the 1960s, a thirty-one-year-old Hunkpapa Sioux from the Standing Rock Reservation with a long family heritage of social, political, and spiritual leadership stepped forth on the national scene as executive director of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Vine Deloria, Jr., served three years as executive director of the NCAI, an experience that profoundly impacted his view of the tipi sapa, or sacred black lodge, that his greatgrandfather had seen in a vision a century earlier. Shocked by what he saw in Indian country—and by how American Indians were perceived—Deloria realized that new tactics were needed if tribal people were to survive the “chaotic and extreme individualism” of America (Deloria 1985, 20). Over the next four decades, Deloria’s prolific pen would profoundly impact the way Americans and the world viewed American Indians. Little known outside national tribal leadership and scarcely known among the masses in Indian country, Deloria “seized the nation by its lapels” with a series of provocative and insightful books in the late 1960s and 1970s. Until that time, many Indians had been viewed “as ciphers rather than as contemporary people facing issues such as education, jobs, healthcare and civil rights.” Although Indians were suitable for wall decorations, to adorn the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Deloria, Vine, Jr.

793

Vine Deloria, Jr., a Native American scholar, author, and activist, influenced two generations of leaders, Native and non-Indian. (AP Photo)

nation’s coinage, and as foils in Western movies, they were viewed as neither modern nor political. “Indians were an unknown quantity,” Deloria once observed. “There was a huge gap in how we were perceived by the average citizen and who we actually were” (Porter 2002, 9). Deloria poignantly outlined his intellectual and theoretical views in a 1969 book that shook the foundations of academia and religious institutions, challenging worldwide perceptions of American Indians. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto set Deloria on the road to national prominence, calling for Indian self-determination within a political and cultural construct that was unique and separate from the larger American political and social constraints. Peoplehood was impossible, Deloria proclaimed, “without cultural independence, which in turn is impossible without land” (Deloria 1969, 180). The social and historical context within which Deloria came into prominence was rooted in the eighteenth century. “As long as any member of my family can remember,” Deloria stated in 1969, “we have been involved in the affairs of the Sioux tribe.” His intellectual and leadership abilities in the strug-

www.abc-clio.com

gle for Indian rights came from carrying on “the leadership qualities of his father, grandfather, and great grandfather” and “stem[med] not only from his formal education and academic position but also from an extraordinary family heritage” (Hoover 1997, 28). In reflecting on his family, Deloria once wrote that his great-grandfather (Saswe), grandfather (Philip), and father (Vine, Sr.) “created a family heritage that has been a heavy burden but that could not have been avoided once Saswe chose the red road [of leadership]” (Deloria 2000, 84). Vine Deloria, Jr., was born on March 26, 1933, in Martin, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Reservation. After attending elementary school in Martin, Deloria graduated from St. James Academy in Faribault, Minnesota, before serving a three-year stint in the U.S. Marine Corps and attending Iowa State University, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in 1958. He then earned a master’s degree in theology from Augustana Lutheran Seminary in Rock Island, Illinois, in 1963. Although he considered following his father’s—and grandfather’s and greatgrandfather’s—footsteps into the ministries of the Episcopal Church, Deloria chose a different path,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

794

Deloria, Vine, Jr.

one that centered on tribalism and traditional religious expressions. In 1964, Deloria accepted a position with the United Scholarship Service in Denver, Colorado, to develop a scholarship program for American Indians to attend elite eastern preparatory schools. Later that year at the Sheridan, Wyoming, convention, he found himself elected executive director of the NCAI, a position he later said he was naïve enough to accept. Expected “to solve problems presented by tribes from all over the country,” Deloria found the work challenging because of “unscrupulous individuals” who made tasks difficult to solve and accented the “great gap between performers and publicity” (Deloria, 1968). Financial concerns always threatened the NCAI; the organization was more than once on the verge of insolvency. When he left as executive director in 1967, Deloria realized that “other tactics would have to be used to further the cause for Indian rights” (Deloria 1969, 270–273). Part of the new tactic was to train Indian attorneys who could help tribes understand their rights and responsibilities. With this in mind, Deloria returned to school in 1967 and earned a law degree from the University of Colorado in 1970. While still in law school, Deloria wrote Custer Died for Your Sins, a book that became his best seller and parlayed his family heritage and legacy of leadership into national prominence. From 1970 to 1972, Deloria taught at Western Washington State College, from 1972 to 1974 at the University of California at Los Angeles, and from 1978 to 1990 at the University of Arizona, where he established an Indian policy studies program within the Political Science Department and an American Indian studies program in 1982. Between 1990 and 2000, he was a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where he retired from academia. Putting action together with his desire to help tribes understand their rights, Deloria was one of three Indian attorneys to establish the Institute for the Development of Indian Law in 1970. This organization provided training and training materials for tribes and educational institutions around the country. He also served in organizations such as the Citizens Crusade against Poverty, the Council on Indian Affairs, the National Office for the Rights of the Indigent, the Indian Rights Association, and the Intertribal Bison Council. He was also a founding trustee on the board of the National Museum of the American Indian. As the preeminent scholar of protection

www.abc-clio.com

of sacred lands, enforcement of treaty rights, and repatriation of cultural patrimony and burial remains, Deloria won numerous awards both in and outside of Indian country. Among the accomplishments of Vine Deloria, Jr., is a truly extraordinary event that shifted the foundation of an entire academic discipline and, in the process, created a more favorable view of American Indians and Indian tribes. The event was the publication of Custer Died for Your Sins, in which Deloria indicted anthropologists and put them on alert that American Indians refused to be imprisoned in their words and writings. In the process, Deloria gave voice to a whole generation of American Indians for the development of a distinct academic discipline of American Indian studies in which Indians themselves would define what was important. In 1989, the American Anthropological Association convened a session entitled “Custer Died for Your Sins: A Twenty-Year Retrospective on Relations Between Anthropologists and American Indians.” Its purpose was to explore the changes that had occurred in Indian-anthropologist relations since Custer was first published. Out of this session came Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, which initiated “a new period in relations between American Indian people and anthropologists in particular, between Indians and non-Indians in America generally, and between colonized peoples and the metropolis globally” (Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997, 4). Easily the “most influential polemicist” of the latter half of the twentieth century, Deloria “exceeded all others with similar motives” by using the social upheavals of the sixties as his forum to “represent a voice of outrage on behalf of Native Americans” (Hoover 1997, 31). Those tutored under and influenced by Deloria’s scholarship have built into their thinking new ethics and morality because of Custer and Deloria’s subsequent writings. Anthropologist Murray L. Wax once credited “the shapeshifting Deloria—lawyer, priest, political scientist, prophet, educator, and satirist”—with shifting the orientation of the anthropologist from that of a “detached observer” to that of a “committed and engaged participant, linked to the local community” (Wax 1997, 59). Deloria acknowledged that progress was made. “Scholars better understand their skills and the degree to which they can assist Indians,” Deloria opined. “We have certainly not found paradise, but we have seen considerable light brought to bear on

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Deloria, Vine, Jr.

problems, and we can now make choices we could not make before.” Nonetheless, the social sciences continue to be “a deeply colonial academic discipline.” America has a “state religion,” Deloria observed, “and it is called science,” which controls the process of information about and interpretation of American Indians and their cultural patrimony. Scholars hiding behind the cloak of science will again “raise their voices” against American Indians in the future, Deloria predicts, because the real battle is “over control of definitions: Who is to define what an Indian really is?” (Deloria 1997b, 210–212). Long committed to the belief of “[getting] knowledge into the hands of ordinary people,” Deloria spent a lifetime helping tribes and tribal people understand the basis of their existence, stressing the legal and moral bases of tribal political and social life. In Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations (1999), he provided an analysis of the U.S. government and how each branch relates to Indian tribes. In Of Utmost Good Faith (1971), Deloria provided an anthology of Indian legal papers, including Supreme Court rulings, treaties and agreements, legislative acts, and tribal speeches. In American Indians, American Justice (1983), American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century (1985), Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties (1974), and The Nations Within (1984), Deloria provided a legal and historical framework of tribes in the United States. In We Talk; You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf (1970) and God Is Red (1973), he expounded on his theoretical framework that tribalism was the only alternative to modern life. Deloria’s recent books focused on the ideological foundations of Western science and its fallacies. Red Earth, White Lies (1995), For This Land (1999), Spirit and Reason (edited by his wife Barbara Deloria in 1999), and Evolution, Creation and Other Modern Myths (2002) all assailed Christianity and the religion of Western science while advocating a return to tribal ways. Tribal philosophies, Deloria theorized, were superior to both Western scientific interpretations and religious dogmas. Believing that the real battle for survival was ideological, Deloria spent a lifetime educating Indians and non-Indians on spiritual matters that define ideology. For these efforts, Time magazine recognized Deloria as one of the ten most influential religious thinkers of the twentieth century. In toto, Deloria’s writings provide an insightful, scholarly and, at times, witty view of the nature of tribes and their dealings with the United States, demonstrating how and why at a philosophical level

www.abc-clio.com

795

tribalism and tribal ways are superior to mainstream Western American ways. Tribal groups, Deloria once observed, “recognize the value of relations,” which creates “a society of responsibility.” To belong to a tribe, one had to “feed the poor,” “take care of the orphans,” and “provide for the elders.” In short, tribalism was relational rather than institutional and hierarchal. American Indians, Deloria wrote in 1997, must “redefine their understanding of leadership to reflect traditional Indian ways.” The key to returning to traditional leadership is to return to tribal ways, including the use of storytelling to help young people “feel they belong to something of their own” (Deloria 1997a, 2, 4). Deloria passed away on November 13, 2005, in Golden, Colorado, at age seventy-two, after surgical complications. University of Colorado professor Charles Wilkinson called him “probably the most influential American Indian of the past century. He was also a wonderful human being, brilliant, bitingly funny, and profoundly warm and compassionate, always willing to lend a hand or raise a spirit” (Johansen 2005, 7-B). David H. DeJong See also Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969; American Indian Movement (AIM); Sovereignty; Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation; Wounded Knee Occupation 1973. References and Further Reading Biolsi, Thomas, and Larry J. Zimmerman. 1997. “What’s Changed, What Hasn’t.” In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, 3–23. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1968. Where Were You When We Needed You? Washington, DC: National Congress of American Indians. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1985. “Out of Chaos.” Parabola 10(2): 14–22. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1997a. Tribal Sovereignty and American Indian Leadership. St. Paul, MN: American Indian Policy Center. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1997b. “Anthros, Indians and Planetary Realities.” In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, 209–222. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 2000. Singing for a Spirit: A Portrait of the Dakota Sioux. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

796

Deskaheh

Hoover, Herbert T. 1997. “Vine Deloria, Jr., in American Historiography.” In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, eds. Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, 27–34.Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Johansen, Bruce E. 2005. “Indian Country Hero Leaves Lasting Legacy.” Omaha World-Herald, November 18: 7-B. Porter, William. 2002. “Longtime Activist Vine Deloria, Jr., to Receive Wallace Stegner Award for His Cultural Contributions.” Denver Post, October 24. Wax, Murray L. 1997. “Educating an Anthro: The Influence of Vine Deloria, Jr.” In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, eds. Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, 50–60.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Deskaheh (1872–1925) Born in 1872, elevated to the position of royaner (hereditary chief) of the Cayuga Nation under the name Deskaheh in 1917, Levi General died June 27, 1925. He is buried at the Cayuga Longhouse in Sour Springs. Deskaheh is well known for his unsuccessful efforts between 1921 and 1925 to stop Canadian interference in Six Nations affairs by obtaining international recognition, through the League of Nations, of Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) sovereignty. After 1918, the Canadian government, particularly the Department of Indian Affairs and its director, Duncan Campbell Scott, refused to recognize the sovereignty of the traditional Six Nations’ governance system at Grand River, Ontario. Adamant that the 1784 Haldiman treaty had confirmed Haudenosaunee independence, Deskaheh traveled to England in 1921 with a petition for King George V. The petition was received by the colonial secretary, Winston Churchill, who returned the document to Canada. Deskaheh and his American lawyer, George Decker, then traveled to Geneva in 1923, where they convinced The Netherlands to lay Iroquois grievances before the League of Nations. Deskaheh, as a representative of the Six Nations, approached the Dutch based on a seventeenth-century mutual aid agreement. On April 26, 1923, The Netherlands requested that the Iroquois petition be placed before the

www.abc-clio.com

League of Nations Council. Following Britain’s and Canada’s response, written largely at Scott’s direction, the secretariat of the League presented the petition but failed to place it on the agenda for discussion. At this point, The Netherlands withdrew its support. Much to the shock of Canada, Deskaheh twice requested, on August 7 and September 4, 1923, that the league grant the Six Nations formal membership as a state. Without the support of a member nation, however, Deskaheh’s application was referred until September 27, when Ireland, Panama, Persia, and Estonia requested that the petition be presented to the league and the case for Iroquoian independence be brought before the International Court. Nonetheless, by 1924 Britain had convinced Deskaheh’s supporters to cease interference in an internal Canadian matter. Meanwhile, in Canada, a federal order-incouncil dissolved the Six Nations’ Confederacy Council and created a democratically elected government subject to the Indian Act. Once elected, members of the democratic council, at the direction of their Indian agent, Colonel Morgan, proclaimed that Deskaheh was not an official representative. Also in 1924, in a dispute over land tenure between the traditional council and Indian Affairs, an Ontario court ruled in Garlow v. General that Deskaheh’s lands and possessions were to be confiscated and sold at auction. Colonel Morgan auctioned Deskaheh’s goods after the Brant County sheriff refused to interfere because his authority did not extend to the Six Nations. In the fall of 1924, Deskaheh returned to En gland to petition the king, an effort that failed. Deskaheh finally left Europe in January 1925, gave his last speech on Iroquois and Indian rights on March 10, and, after learning that his healer had not been allowed to cross the border, died on June 27. His funeral three days later was well attended by Haudenosaunee and the ever-watchful Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Canadian officials hoped that, with the “troublemaker ’s” death, the sovereignty issue would disappear. At the funeral, according to Iroquois customs, his brother Alexander General was elevated to royaner with the name of Deskaheh. During his visits to Europe, many reporters, diplomats, and visitors were disappointed that Deskaheh failed to live up to their stereotype of a typical Indian chief. Much to Deskaheh’s credit, he refused to lower himself by playing Indian. Instead, he usually wore a simple brown suit and kept regu-

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dodge, Henry

797

lar company with his lawyer, although photographs do exist of him in traditional garb. While seeking to promote his people’s sovereignty, Deskaheh’s petitions and speeches form a wonderful corpus of material on indigenous rights and their trammeling by colonial powers. The most readily available materials by Deskaheh are the Redman’s Appeal for Justice and his final speech on March 10, 1925. Karl S. Hele See also Northeast and Great Lakes; Treaties with the Six Nations—October 22, 1784, January 9, 1789, November 11, 1794. References and Further Reading Rostowski, Joëlle. 1987. “The Redman’s Appeal for Justice: Deskaheh and The League of Nations.” In Indians and Europe: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays, ed. Christian F. Feest, 435–453. Aachen, Germany: Rader Verlag. Woo, Li Xiu (Grace Emma Slykhuis). No date. “The Truth About Deskaheh: Part II, III, IV.” Eastern Door. Accessed August 1, 2004, at www.easterndoor.com/9–10/9–10–4.htm and www.easterndoor.com. Woo, Li Xiu (Grace Emma Slykhuis). 1999. “Canada v. the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy at the League of Nations: Two Quests for Independence.” Ph.D. dissertation, M. en droit international—Université du Québec à Montréal.

An experienced Indian fighter, Henry Dodge (1782–1867) commanded the army’s first cavalry regiment after the War of 1812 and he is noted for his service during the Black Hawk War in 1832. (North Wind Picture Archives)

Dodge, Henry (1782–1867) Henry Dodge was born on October 12, 1782, in Vincennes, Northwest Territory (present-day Indiana). Born and raised in frontier Indiana and Kentucky, Henry Dodge shared most westerners’ hunger for land and their belief that, in the long run, American citizens should not have to coexist peacefully with sovereign Indian peoples. After his father settled the family in the Ste. Genevieve District of Spanish Louisiana (later Missouri) in 1796, Henry assisted him and their slaves in building wealth through salt making, distilling, farming, and lead mining. Dodge became Ste. Genevieve County’s sheriff in 1805 and held office until 1821. He commanded mounted Missouri militiamen in defending American settlements from Indians during the War of 1812 and witnessed the postwar peace treaties concluded by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Choteau with

www.abc-clio.com

Teton and Yankton leaders at Portage des Sioux on July 19, 1815. In the summer of 1827, Dodge moved his household up the Mississippi to establish lead mining and smelting operations on Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) lands in what is now southwestern Wisconsin. Dodge quickly built a following among like-minded miners by commanding a hundred of them as mounted militia in harassing Ho-Chunks during “Red Bird’s War” during that first summer. He then established lead works near today’s Dodgeville and by mid-February headed a settlement of some 130 fully armed miners. The U.S. government eventually yielded to the invading miners and insisted that any Indians who claimed lands in or near the lead mining region east of the Mississippi—which included subgroups of Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Ottawa as well as Ho-Chunk—sell them to the United States. The cessions were formalized through two treaties

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

798

Dodge, Henry Chee

signed at Prairie du Chien on July 29 and August 1, 1829. Dodge witnessed both, directed a memo of appreciation to Congress, and eventually owned more than one thousand acres in the region. Dodge furthered the U.S. conquest of southern Wisconsin in 1832, commanding mounted militiamen with deadly effectiveness against Black Hawk’s fleeing Sauk and Mesquakie (Fox) followers. President Jackson rewarded him with command of the U.S. Mounted Rangers, and Major Dodge witnessed the two treaties dictated by Winfield Scott and John Reynolds to Sauk, Mesquakie, and Ho-Chunk at Fort Armstrong in the wake of Black Hawk’s defeat. The first (September 15, 1832) was meant to hasten HoChunk removal west of the Mississippi; the second (September 21) appropriated to the United States roughly six million acres of Sauk and Mesquakie land in eastern Iowa. In 1834 and 1835, as colonel of the First U.S. Dragoons (forerunners of the U.S. Cavalry), Dodge led expeditions west to council with Comanche, Kiowa, Wichita (Toyash), Pawnee, Arikara, Arapahoe, Cheyenne, and other peoples. Among other things, the government hoped to stop these groups from warring with the eastern Indians resettled by the United States on the eastern Plains. Dodge’s expeditions set the stage for the formal peace treaty that 186 Comanche, Wichita, Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Choctaw, Osage, Seneca, and Quapaw representatives signed with U.S. commissioners at Camp Holmes on August 24, 1835. The treaty would not end violence on the plains, but it allowed increased trade between Americans and western Indians. Dodge became the Wisconsin Territory’s first governor and superintendent of Indian affairs on July 4, 1836, and served as the lone U.S. commissioner for four separate land cession treaties during the next thirteen months. The first, signed with Oshkosh and other Menominee leaders at Cedar Point on September 3, 1836, yielded the United States some four million acres, mostly pinelands north of Green Bay, in exchange for $700,000. Later that month, Dodge signed two treaties with Sauk and Mesquakie leaders near Rock Island, further reducing their land holdings west of the Mississippi. His final treaty, signed with leaders of diverse upper Mississippi Ojibwe groups at St. Peter’s Agency (by Fort Snelling) on July 29, 1837, was in American eyes among the most impressive ever negotiated. In exchange for $870,000, the United

www.abc-clio.com

States claimed some twelve million acres, including most of northwestern Wisconsin. Ojibwes from the ceded lands long disputed the U.S. interpretation of the treaty, correctly recalling that their chosen spokesman, Majigabo (Great Speaker, or La Trappe), negotiated the treaty as a pineland lease, not a cession. Moreover, Dodge had improperly rushed the negotiations and violated numerous other Ojibwe diplomatic protocols. Dodge omitted such details in his report, and the Senate ratified the treaty, just as it had his others. The popular Dodge, along with other westerners, advised the government to force further Wisconsin land cessions in 1837. That fall, U.S. officials brought Dakotas and Ho-Chunks to Washington, where they successfully pressured each delegation to sell all of their remaining lands east of the Mississippi, which included most of southwestern Wisconsin. Dodge remained politically active until 1857, serving as Wisconsin’s territorial governor until 1841 and again from 1845 to 1848; from 1841 to 1845 he was the territory’s delegate to Congress. When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, Dodge entered the U.S. Senate, where he remained until 1857. He died in Burlington, Iowa, in 1867. Chad Ronnander See also Black Hawk; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the Menominee–September 3, 1836. References and Further Reading Clark, James I. 1957. Henry Dodge, Frontiersman. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Pelzer, Louis. 1911. Henry Dodge. Ames: State Historical Society of Iowa. Salter, William. 1890. The Life of Henry Dodge, from 1782 to 1833. Burlington, IA: press unknown. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Smith, Alice. 1973. The History of Wisconsin, vol. 1, From Exploration to Statehood. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin.

Dodge, Henry Chee (c. 1857–1947) Henry Chee Dodge (Hastiin Adiits’a’ii, “Man Who Interprets”) was an influential leader of the Navajo Nation for more than half a century, serving as the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dodge, Henry Chee

reservation government’s chairman from 1923 to 1928 and from 1942 to 1946. Fluent in both English and Navajo when few were, Dodge played an influential role as a translator and political leader and worked to expand the size of the Navajo Nation. Dodge was born shortly before the Navajos’ Long Walk to Fort Sumner, and his mother and father died when he was very young. Upon Dodge’s return from the Long Walk, Indian agent W. F. M. Arn took an interest in the young man, for Arn believed that Dodge was the son of a former Indian agent, Henry Dodge. It is more likely, however, that his father was a captive Mexican. Upon returning from Fort Sumner, Dodge attended school for a short time in Fort Defiance. By 1882, he was serving as the official agency interpreter, and, having shown courage several times, he was put in charge of the Navajo police force and named head chief by the Indian agent. Dodge also made the first of eight trips to Washington, D.C., accompanying a delegation of Navajos to Grover Cleveland’s inauguration in 1884. On his last trip, in his eighties, he asked for more schools, hospitals, land, and irrigation facilities for the Navajos. In 1890, Dodge invested in a partnership and bought the Round Rock Trading Post, which he comanaged. In 1892, when Indian agent David Shipley was surrounded and beaten at Round Rock while recruiting students for the Fort Defiance Boarding School, Dodge helped rescue him, defending him for three days until soldiers came to the rescue. During the 1890s, Dodge also became a successful rancher at Crystal, New Mexico, and by 1907 he was a wealthy, prominent Navajo headman. In 1914, Dodge wrote to the secretary of the interior stressing the need for more schools so that Navajo children could learn to speak English. He also stated that the allotment of the Navajo Reservation would hurt most Navajos and that state governments had no interest in helping Navajos. In 1940, Dodge criticized day schools and the teaching of the Navajo language and asked for more boarding schools. In 1922, Dodge was appointed a member of a three-man Navajo business council to sign oil leases by the U.S. government, and in 1923 a twelvemember Navajo council was elected and chose Dodge as chairman. He worked to get the money from the oil leases to benefit all Navajos, even those living off the reservation, rather than just those from the region where the oil was located.

www.abc-clio.com

799

Indian agents for the Navajo called for stock reduction because of overgrazing as early as the 1880s. The increasing Navajo population and their livestock impinged on their neighbors, including the Pueblo Indians. Dodge worked to get more land for the Navajo by cooperating with the demands of the federal government. In the 1920s, Jacob Morgan rose to prominence as Dodge’s opponent, representing young, assimilated, Christian Navajos educated in boarding schools. Morgan questioned whether Dodge was really a Navajo and, as a fundamentalist Protestant, opposed Dodge’s sympathy toward Catholics, the Native American Church, and traditional Navajo religion. Another strike against Dodge was his practice of the Navajo tradition of polygamy for wealthy Navajos, having over his lifetime eight wives, four of whom were sisters, and six children. Dodge’s son Thomas, an attorney, became tribal chairman in 1932, and in 1935 he was appointed assistant superintendent for the Navajo agency in an attempt to gain Navajo support for the Indian Reorganization Act, which the Navajos voted against. When John Collier became commissioner of Indian affairs in 1933, he pressured Thomas to implement stock reduction to protect Navajo lands from eroding and filling up the newly built Boulder (now Hoover) Dam on the Colorado River. Increasing Navajo discontent with stock reduction and the council’s complicity led Thomas to resign the chairmanship in 1936. Riding the antistock reduction sentiment of most Navajos, Morgan became tribal chairman in 1938 but was defeated by Dodge in 1942. Dodge’s son Ben and his daughter Annie Wauneka, a respected health educator, also served on the Navajo tribal council. Jon Reyhner See also Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Long Walk, 1864; Treaties with the Navajo—September 1849, June 1, 1868. References and Further Reading Brugge, David M. 1985. “Henry Chee Dodge.” In Indian Lives: Essays on Nineteenth- and TwentiethCentury Native American Leaders, eds. L. G. Moses and Raymond Wilson, 91–112. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Niethammer, Carolyn. 2001. I’ll Go and Do More: Annie Dodge Wauneka, Navajo Leader and Activist. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

800

Doolittle Committee

Doolittle Committee The work of the Doolittle Committee in the mid1860s represented a profound shift away from the prevailing philosophy of military control of Indian affairs toward a more paternalistic approach aimed at forestalling the supposedly inevitable extinction of American Indians. The committee, whose official name was the Joint Special Committee to Inquire into the Condition of the Indian Tribes, was convened in March 1865 and named for its congressional sponsor and chairman, Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin. The mix of senators and representatives then spent the next year and a half surveying the conditions of Indian tribes throughout the western United States. Their final report, presented in January 1867, painted a stark picture of the condition of America’s Indians, projecting a bleak opinion of their future and delivering a scathing indictment of their treatment at the hands of whites. But even as the report detailed numerous transgressions and castigated the actions of the many U.S. agents, civilians, and military officials then in charge of Indian affairs in the West, it was also imbued with a customary bias that painted the western tribes as hopelessly indolent and fated to become extinct unless a more enlightened federal Indian policy could be implemented. These misguided conclusions and the attitudes promoted by the Doolittle Committee proved to be a watershed for a movement of paternalistic reformers and Indian advocates that dominated policy debates throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century. The Sand Creek Massacre, along with numerous other violent skirmishes between Indians and whites across the Great Plains, inspired the call for an investigation into the conditions of the Indian tribes and the conduct of the civilians and military officials that governed them. Once the committee was approved and the members were appointed, the seven congressman split into three groups assigned to designated territories west of the Mississippi. Senators Lafayette S. Foster of Connecticut and Edmund G. Ross of Kansas joined Doolittle in surveying conditions in Kansas, the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma), Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Senator James W. Nesmith of Oregon and Congressman William Higby of California were assigned to the states of California, Oregon, and Nevada, along with the territories of Washington, Idaho, and Montana, and Congressmen William Windom of Minnesota and Asahel W. Hubbard of Iowa covered the state of

www.abc-clio.com

Minnesota and the territories of Nebraska, Dakota, and Montana. In order to supplement their direct observations, the committee sent out questionnaires to various agents and others who dealt with the tribes, to get their opinions on various aspects of Indian life, education, handling of annuities, and their general impressions of the operations of the Indian Bureau. The responses to these queries detailed two primary conclusions: that fraud and corruption were rampant within the system of Indian affairs and that Indian populations were declining everywhere. The 532-page appendix to the report detailed the questionnaire responses and was riddled with charges of corruption and depredations perpetrated by lawless white men. Some of these allegations were certainly true, but many contained dubious assertions and little proof in support of the charges. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that conclusions of the Doolittle Committee were composed to serve a purpose, and that purpose was to effect a change in the way the United States dealt with American Indians. To that end, the committee’s report offered a number of suggestions for various reforms in both the structure and the administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Yet, in keeping with the ethnocentric bias so prevalent among paternalistic reformers of the nineteenth century, the overarching context of the committee’s conclusions was colored by a belief that the “lower” race of Indians was fated to become extinct. Despite ascribing significant blame to unscrupulous whites for the many Indian wars that wreaked havoc on Indian communities, officials also continued to argue that it was the inherent inferiority of Indian people that edged them toward extinction. Thus, even as they acknowledged the devastation of warfare on Indian populations, the committee and its respondents concomitantly attributed the additional afflictions of intemperance, disease, and hunger to the inferiority of Indian peoples and their tendency to adopt “all the vices and none of [the] virtues” of the whites among them (U.S. Congress 1867, 5). Predictably, this attitude ultimately meant that their proposed solutions for overhauling the administration of Indian affairs did little to actually effect any direct improvement in the lives of Indian peoples. But the Doolittle Committee’s greatest significance lies not in their lack of success in cultivating real policy changes but in the spirit of reform they brought to public debates that inspired a new era of paternalism in federal Indian affairs. Bradley J. Gills

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dull Knife

801

See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian Rights Association (IRA). References and Further Reading Keller, Robert H., Jr. 1983. American Protestantism and United States Indian Policy, 1869–1882. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1976. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865–1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Abr. ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Trennert, Robert A., Jr. 1975. Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy and the Beginnings of the Reservation System, 1846–1851. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. United States Congress Joint Special Committee to Inquire into the Condition of the Indian Tribes. 1867. Condition of the Indian Tribes. Report of the Joint Special Committee, Appointed under Joint Resolution of March 3, 1865. With an Appendix. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dull Knife (c. 1810–1883) The harrowing march of Dull Knife and his Cheyenne compatriots from U.S. Army captivity toward their homeland in present-day Wyoming is described in Mari Sandoz’s Cheyenne Autumn (1953). Dull Knife, as he was called by the Lakota, also was called Morning Star by the Cheyennes. Dull Knife, with Little Wolf, led the trek after their exile to Indian country (Oklahoma today) late in the 1870s and 1880s. Dull Knife and Little Wolf were among the Cheyennes who allied with the Lakota and other Native nations who defeated George Armstrong Custer at the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876. The army, reinforced with fresh troops, then pursued the Lakota and their allies. By 1877, U.S. Army troops had chased Dull Knife into the Bighorn Mountains near the head of the Powder River. The Cheyenne were then arrested and sent to Oklahoma, where, during the next several months, many of them died. During mid-August 1878, the Cheyennes asked Indian agent John Miles to let them leave Oklahoma for home. On superiors’ orders, Miles refused. The Cheyennes, who lacked food, took matters into their own hands, escaping homeward

www.abc-clio.com

Dull Knife and fellow chief Little Wolf led several hundred of their people in an epic march from Oklahoma toward their homelands in Montana during 1878. (National Archives and Records Administration)

on foot. Early the next day, three hundred surviving Cheyennes started a march to their homelands in the Powder River Country several hundred miles away. The next day, cavalry caught up with them on the Little Medicine Lodge River. The Cheyennes refused to surrender and continued their trek, repelling other attacks. They crossed the Arkansas and South Platte rivers. At White Clay Creek, Nebraska, they split into two groups. Dull Knife led 150 people to the Red Cloud agency, where they surrendered. Little Wolf and another 150 people hid in the Nebraska Sand Hills. Little Wolf’s band surrendered to Lieutenant W. P. Clark and an army unit of Cheyenne and Lakota scouts the following March. Back in Nebraska, Dull Knife’s band arrived at the Red Cloud agency and found it abandoned, so they marched to Fort Robinson. Dull Knife’s band

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

802

Dumont, Gabriel

lived at the fort for two months. Officers at the fort then were ordered by superiors to force the Cheyennes back to Oklahoma. Dull Knife refused to go; Captain Oscar Wessells, the commanding officer, locked the Cheyennes in a freezing barracks with no food or water for three days. They refused to surrender. On January 9, 1879, the Cheyennes broke out again. Fifty of them died that evening under fire by troops; twenty more died of wounds and exposure. Most of the fewer than a hundred who survived were directed back to Fort Robinson under guard. Dull Knife and his wife and son then escaped once again, traveling eighteen nights on foot and resting by day, to Pine Ridge. They ate bark and their own moccasins to survive. At the Pine Ridge agency, Bill Rowland, an interpreter, housed the family. Thirty-one other warriors also escaped Fort Robinson. Troops followed them to Hat Creek Bluffs, where they called upon the warriors to surrender. The Cheyennes answered the command with their last three bullets. More shooting followed, killing twenty-eight Cheyenne. The last three survivors stood up, using their empty rifles as clubs, and charged the three hundred soldiers, who killed them. John Ford, the well-known director of Western movies, released a film version of Cheyenne Autumn in 1964, his last Western film. Some reviewers believed that Ford’s film was an apology for the excessive cruelty displayed toward Native peoples in his earlier films. Set in 1887, the film recounts the defiant migration of three hundred Cheyennes from their reservation in Oklahoma Territory to their original home in Wyoming. They have done this at the behest of Chiefs Little Wolf (played by Ricardo Montalban) and Dull Knife (played by Gilbert Roland), who are portrayed as “peaceful souls who have been driven to desperate measures because the U.S. government has ignored their pleas for food and shelter.” In the New York Times, reviewer Bosley Crowther described the film as “a cinematic elegy—not only for the beleaguered Cheyennes, but for John Ford’s fifty years in pictures” (Crowther, n.d.). The bones of the dead Cheyennes later were turned over to the U.S. Army Medical Museum for scientific study. On October 8, 1993, the remains were returned to a delegation of sixteen Cheyennes in Washington, D.C., for reburial under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. Bruce E. Johansen

www.abc-clio.com

See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho–October 14, 1865; Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 28, 1867. References and Further Reading Crowther, Bosley. No date. “Movie Details: Cheyenne Autumn.” New York Times. Accessed November 1, 2005, at http://movies2 .nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html ?v_id=9133. Little Eagle, Avis. 1993. “Remains of Dull Knife’s Band Make Final Journey Home.” Indian Country Today, October 14. Sandoz, Mari. 1953. Cheyenne Autumn. Lincoln, NB: Center for Great Plains Studies. Repr., Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992. Wiltsey, Norman B. 1963. Brave Warriors. Caldwell, ID: Caxton.

Dumont, Gabriel (1837–1906) Born in 1837 at Red River, Rupert’s Land (Manitoba), Gabriel Dumont, a Métis, died May 19, 1906 at Bellevue (St.-Isidore-de-Bellevue), Saskatchewan. Dumont is best known for his role as a military leader in the 1885 Riel Rebellion. Prior to 1885, he was a community leader, a bison hunter, a ferry operator, a store owner, and a farmer. After 1885, Dumont seasonally worked in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show (1886–1888), became a symbol for Quebec nationalists (1888–1889), and returned in 1893–1894 to Batoche, Saskatchewan. Dumont married Madeline Wilkie at St. Joseph (Walhalla, North Dakota) in 1858. Madeline died in North Dakota in the spring of 1886. The couple had no children. Dumont grew up on the plains with his parents and extended family. He was involved in the 1851 battle between the Métis and Yankton Dakota at Grand Coteau. By the 1860s, Dumont had risen to the position of hunting leader in the Fort Carleton region (Saskatchewan). In 1872, Dumont opened a ferry service and store on the Fort Carleton Trail. He was elected head of a council of eight in 1873. This council sought to govern the St. Laurent Métis community until the Northwest Territorial government established itself. In 1874, the Northwest Mounted Police (NWMP) investigated the council after the Fort Carleton Hudson’s Bay Company factor charged the Métis government with sedition. Although the NWMP cleared it of the

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Dumont, Gabriel

allegations, the council ceased to function. From 1877 to 1884, Dumont supported Métis petitions that requested land surveys and grants and representation on the Northwest Territories governing council, as well as assistance for schooling and farming. In 1878–1879, the river lot and square lot systems were surveyed in St. Laurent. Dumont and others demanded a resurvey according to the traditional river lot system. The Métis river lot system, drawn from their French heritage, consisted of narrow strips of land that fronted a river and extended inland. The house, constructed beside the river at the front of the lot, allowed easy access to the river and gave the Métis access to farm land as well as a wood lot at the back. The square lot system, derived from the standard grid pattern township surveys, would arbitrarily cut across the river lots. The proposed solution to the issue, through the subdivision of the square lots into smaller sections that could then be pieced together to match the river lots, was complicated, confusing, and appeared unnecessary to the Métis, who already had a viable system of land allotment. Instead, after delaying the decision, the Canadian government in Ottawa offered an awkward method of legal subdivision of the square lots to mimic the river lot layout. By 1884, survey and treaty issues in Saskatchewan had created a tense atmosphere; nonNative immigrants, Indians, and Métis were dis satisfied with the Canadian government. While discussing further petitions in March 1884, Dumont suggested that Louis Riel be asked for assistance because of his success in negotiating with the Canadian government during the 1869–1870 Red River incident. Dumont and four others returned with Riel from North Dakota in July 1884. After eight months of lobbying Ottawa, Dumont and Riel concluded in February 1885 that Métis concerns would never be addressed. Dumont’s unwavering support of Riel convinced many Métis to support the declaration of a provisional government and armed rebellion. Hostilities commenced at Duck Lake when a Métis force led by Dumont defeated approximately one hundred NWMP and two hundred Englishspeaking settler volunteers who were attempting to arrest rebel leaders. Dumont forced Major-General Frederick Middleton to halt his advance toward Batoche for two weeks, after a battle at Fish Creek. Following this engagement, the Métis withdrew to

www.abc-clio.com

803

defensive positions at Batoche, where they were defeated after a four-day battle (May 9–12). Upon hearing of Riel’s surrender, Dumont fled to the United States on May 27. American authorities arrested and later released Dumont after he crossed the border. While in North Dakota, Dumont attempted to raise money and a force to liberate Riel from the jail in Regina, Saskatchewan. While working in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, Dumont met members of New York’s French community and began speaking about the 1885 rebellion. After giving a single lecture in Quebec, which shocked the nationalist French Canadian audience with its anticlerical tone, Dumont’s planned speaking tour was cancelled. He remained in Quebec until the 1890s and dictated his rebellion experiences during the winter of 1889. In 1893, Dumont applied for scrip in Winnipeg and resettled at his Batoche homestead. His death in 1906 while visiting a favorite nephew (Alexis Dumont) passed unnoticed by Canada. Dumont’s role in the 1885 rebellion has been represented by scholars as either secondary or equal to Riel’s. Historians basing their work on Dumont’s dictation of his experiences have focused on Riel’s interference in military matters to explain why the Métis lost. According to Roderick C. Macleod (2000), documents and events indicate that neither Dumont nor Riel sought a far-reaching military campaign and engaged Canadian forces only when they entered Métis lands. Moreover, the Métis eventually would have been defeated regardless of Dumont’s military acumen. Karl S. Hele

See also Canada; Canadian Indian Treaties; Métis; Riel, Louis. References and Further Reading Macleod, Roderick C. 2000. “Dumont, Gabriel.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. Accessed December 30, 2004, at http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?Bi old=40814&query=Dumont. Stanley, George F. G. 1992. The Birth of Western Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellions. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Woodcock, George W. 2003. Gabriel Dumont. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Woodcock, George W. “Dumont, Gabriel.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Accessed December 30, 2004, at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A 1ARTA0002444.

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

804

Emathla, Charley

Emathla, Charley (c. 1790–1835) Born a Creek in Georgia, Charley Emathla moved to Florida during the late 1820s, where he would become identified with the Seminole as an opponent of Osceola. Although many of the Georgia Creeks were forcibly relocated west of the Mississippi, Emathla settled on a small farm near Fort King (near Tampa, Florida) with a herd of cattle. He subsequently assumed a leadership role among the Seminoles. As a signatory of the Treaty of Payne’s Landing in 1832, Emathla agreed to relocate to Indian Territory (later called Oklahoma). While accompanying a Seminole delegation to inspect the new lands promised in Indian Territory, he also signed the 1833 Treaty of Fort Gibson. In June 1835, Indian agent Wiley Thompson imprisoned Osceola, a leader of the Seminoles who opposed relocation. Having decided to resist the plans of Emathla and his supporters to leave for Oklahoma, Osceola pretended to change his position. He asked Emathla to intercede for him. Emathla, convinced of Osceola’s sincerity, agreed to help. Osceola was released only after he promised to use his influence in favor of emigration.

Instead, Osceola met with other chiefs who were hostile to the move, and all agreed that death was the only appropriate penalty for any Seminole who sold his stock or otherwise prepared to leave. At this news, four hundred and fifty Indians who had agreed to emigrate fled to Fort Brooke for protection. Emathla continued to defy Osceola and openly sold his possessions. As Emathla was returning from the sale with his money, on December 18, 1835, he was ambushed and killed by Osceola’s band. Some accounts say that Osceola threw the cattle money over Emathla’s dead body as he awaited burial. Others say that he scattered the money to the four winds. Osceola’s faction then killed Agent Thompson on December 28, while another party massacred a military command under Major Francis Dade, after whom Dade County, Florida, is named. Their actions provoked the Second Seminole War (1835–1842). Bruce E. Johansen See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Osceola; Treaty with the Creek–February 14, 1833; Treaty with the Seminole–May 9, 1832. References and Further Reading Bland, Celia. 1994. Osceola, Seminole Rebel. New York: Chelsea House. Covington, James W. 1993. The Seminoles of Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Mahon, John K. 1967. History of the Second Seminole War, 1835–1842. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Erasmus, George Henry (1948–)

Emathla, a Creek chieftain, was killed by Seminole Chief Osceola. (Library of Congress)

www.abc-clio.com

George Henry Erasmus, born in 1948 in Rae-Edzo, Northwest Territories, is widely known as a Canadian crusader for Native rights and self-government. Erasmus, who holds seven honorary doctorate degrees, came into public prominence in Canada during the early 1970s as the leader of the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories. He went on to become the president of the Dene Nation, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and co-chair of the historic Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. All his life he has fought for the rights of Native peoples to control their own lives and their own lands. As a Dene raised in Yellowknife, Erasmus witnessed the impoverished plight of his people and has fought to break the cycle of alcoholism, poverty,

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

Eskiminzin

and dependence on government handouts by advocating political sovereignty. Erasmus became a leader in the NWT Indian Brotherhood; at twentyeight, he become president of the Dene Nation, a position he held for seven years. He voiced crucial environmental and land title concerns on behalf of the Dene people during the Berber pipeline inquiry in 1974, when a pipeline was being proposed to carry oil through the Mackenzie River valley in the Northwest Territories. In 1975, Erasmus advocated for the historic Dene Declaration, which declared the sovereignty of the Dene Nation. In 1985, Erasmus was elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Canada’s largest Native organization. The Assembly of First Nations was born out of the National Indian Brotherhood and represents 630 First Nations communities in Canada. His goals were to unite the First Nations of Canada with the Métis and Inuits and to negotiate with the provincial and federal governments on behalf of all Native peoples in the country. As national chief, Erasmus participated in the First Ministers Conferences on constitutional matters directly affecting aboriginal peoples of Canada. He became known there as Canada’s “eleventh premier.” At the final conference, in 1987, the federal and provincial governments unanimously failed to recognize the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples. Despite this roadblock, Erasmus and the Assembly of First Nations won support from some of the provinces and accomplished a heightened awareness of issues affecting Native peoples. Under Erasmus, the public profile of the AFN rose to new heights. Erasmus was reelected national chief in 1988 and served until 1991. During this time, he brought many aboriginal issues to the attention of the Canadian public. In one speech, he expressed the frustration and anger of Native peoples toward government inaction. He warned that, if politicians did not seek peaceful solutions with his generation of leaders, the next generation might resort to violent political action. In 1990, his warning was realized in the Oka crisis, a violent political standoff between Native peoples and the government over a proposed golf course expansion on Mohawk burial grounds. In 1991, Erasmus was appointed co-chair of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, along with Judge René Dussault, to hear from aboriginal peoples in Canada and recommend solutions to ongoing problems. After five years of hearings and studies, the commission’s recommendations in-

www.abc-clio.com

805

cluded formation of a distinct body of aboriginal government within the Canadian government, granting of province-like power to aboriginal nation governments, and abolition of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and its replacement with a Department of Aboriginal Relations and a Department of Indian and Inuit Services. Critics in the Canadian government rejected the recommendations as too costly and unrealistic. Despite government inaction on issues he advocates, Erasmus is a highly respected leader. He was made an officer of the Order of Canada in 1999, after being appointed a member in 1987. He has also been the Canadian delegate to the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. In 1998, Erasmus became the head of a new organization, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The multimillion-dollar fund for the foundation was the result of a contribution from the Canadian government in acknowledgment of its role in inflicting damage on Native peoples through the residential school system. The purpose of the foundation is to address the legacy of physical and sexual abuse suffered by the students of the residential schools. Aliki Marinakis See also Canada; Canadian Indian Treaties. References and Further Reading CBC Archives. No date. “George Erasmus: Native Rights Crusader.” Accessed March 13, 2005, at http://archives.cbc.ca/300i.asp?id=1-73-516. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2004. Aboriginal People Profiles. “George Erasmus–Chief.” Accessed May 15, 2005, at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ks/3108_e.html. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2005. “Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.” Accessed May 5, 2005, at http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/index_e.html. McNab, David T. 2001. “Of Beads and a Crystal Vase, Michael Dorris’s The Broken Cord and Cloud Chamber.” West Virginia University Philological Papers 47: 109–119. Richardson, Boyce, ed. 1989. Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country. Toronto, ON: Summerhill Press.

Eskiminzin A leader of the Arivaipa Apache band in the late ninteenth century, Eskiminzin guided his people through the turbulent first years of American colonialism in southern Arizona. Known by various

ABC-CLIO

1-800-368-6868

806

Forsyth, Thomas

names, including Es-kin-in-zin and Skimmy, Eskiminzin is an approximation of the Apache name, Haské Bahnzin (Anger Stands Beside Him). Haské Bahnzin lived a remarkable and difficult life, not only as a leader of a Native community threatened from every corner but also as a farmer, warrior, husband, diplomat, rebel, father, and prisoner. Although Haské Bahnzin was born into the Pinal band of western Apaches, he married into the closely related Arivaipa band, or tcéjìné (Dark Rocks People), who farmed and gathered along Arivaipa Creek and the San Pedro River in southern Arizona. Even decades after his death, Haské Bahnzin was remembered as a generous man who welcomed relatives to gather in the San Pedro Valley. Despite the abundance of the land, Apache lifeways were not entirely tranquil. Haské Bahnzin certainly participated in the violence of war and raiding that pitted Apaches against the Mexican and American empires throughout the 1800s. In February 1871, after an especially harsh winter, Haské Bahnzin arrived at Camp Grant, a U.S. Army installation on the San Pedro River, asking for peace. Several months later, more than four hundred Apaches had surrendered to the army and were living peacefully at gashdla’á cho o’aa (Big Sycamore Stands There), five miles from Camp Grant. Nearby Chiricahua Apaches continued raiding, and Tucson leaders mistakenly believed those camped at gashdla’á cho o’aa were responsible. In a surprise attack on gashdla’á cho o’aa, the Tucsonans and their Tohono O’odham allies killed more than one hundred Apaches and took close to thirty children as slaves. Haské Bahnzin lost most of the Arivaipa band as well as his own wife and children in the Camp Grant massacre. In the wake of the massacre, Haské Bahnzin returned to a life in the mountains. During the months that followed, people accused him of committing murders and attacks; however, none of these accusations have been convincingly proven. In 1872, he and his fellow tribesmen returned to Camp Grant, this time to have peace talks with government authorities, Tucson businessmen, and Tohono O’odham leaders. From these discussions, he agreed to move north and settle along the San Carlos River. Life at San Carlos was not altogether uneventful for Haské Bahnzin. In 1874, he was arrested as a prisoner of war. Later released, he began a farm and continued to mediate among Apaches and government officials. John P. Clum, an Indian agent at San

www.abc-clio.com

Carlos, befriended Haské Bahnzin and took him across the continent to Washington, D.C., in 1876. He made the trip east again in 1888 to meet President Grover Cleveland. In 1877, Haské Bahnzin moved to nadnlid cho (Big Sunflower Hill), now the town of Dudleyville, in the San Pedro Valley. There he settled down to a successful life as a farmer and rancher. Shortly after he built a home, three or four additional Apache families joined him, also erecting houses and fences and cultivating the land. However, later that year, an Indian agent warned Haské Bahnzin that 150 armed citizens were coming to kill him. With the memory of the massacre at Camp Grant, he fled. He later said Tucsonans stole 513 sacks of grain, 523 pumpkins, and 32 cattle. After his escape, Haské Bahnzin was asked if he might return to San Pedro; he replied, “I would not be safe there and would feel like a man sitting on a chair with some one scratching the sand out from under the legs” (Clum 1929, 22). Haské Bahnzin went back to San Carlos and tried to begin a new life. Yet, several years later, he was arrested in r