Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
364 |
& head Warrior present." The Treaty goods were delivered the following day.57
In his letter of transmittal of the Treaty of September 30, 1809 to the Secretary of War58 Harrison remarked that he had had no alternative except to include the Delawares and Potawatomis in this Treaty in some way, since they were present at the Treaty. He argued that their inclusion, and the increase in their annuities provided for in the Treaty, would further bind them to the interests of the United States, and would reconcile differences between the various Indian groups. Harrison stated that the recognition of the Miamis to the claim of the Delawares to lands on the White River
will facilitate the acquirement of this valuable country by the United States, as the Delawares have had for a long time a desire to remove to the west of the Mississippi.59
Concerning the inclusion of the Potawatomis in the Treaty, Harrison observed:
The Putawatamies have been gratified with a considerable present in goods which they much wanted, and a further addition to their annuity. This will create another tie to bind this numerous and warlike tribe to the United States. . . .Every opportunity which the shortness of my stay after the signing of the Treaty, would allow was employed to convince them of the justice and generosity with which they had been treated. If any ill blood yet remains a little attention to the influential Chiefs will soon remove it.60
57. Ibid., pp.
23-24; Dft. Ex.
131.
58. Harrison to the Secretary of War, Vincennes, November 3, 1809, Dft. Ex. 152.
59. Idem.
60. Idem. Emphasis ours.
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
365 |
The somewhat higher than usual price which had been paid for the lands in the Treaty of September 30, 1809 Harrison excused on the grounds that the Indians were very obstinate in desiring two dollars an acre for the lands. The Indians knew the United States would receive this price when the lands were sold; Harrison attributed their knowledge and stubbornness on this point to information given them by British agents. He added that the price the United States had paid was not a bad bargain, the cessions contained much very desirable land which would sell readily, as soon as the lands were opened for settlement.61
With respect to the 9th Article in the Treaty of September 30, 1809, to which Kickapoo assent had to be obtained, Harrison thought there might be some trouble since the Kickapoos were then
very much under the influence of the Prophet, and it is possible that they may refuse to give up their claims to the lands North west of the wabash.62
However, Harrison pledged himself
to obtain [the lands northwest of the Wabash] in the course of eight or ten months. As the Miami [the Miamis, Weas, & Eel Rivers] who are the real owners of the land have surrendered their claim, we can wait a favorable opportunity to obtain the relinquishment of their (the Kickapoo's) title derived only from present occupancy.63
61. Idem. Carter, Territorial Papers, vol. 7, p. 681;
Dft. Ex.
69.
62. Harrison to the Secretary of War, Vincennes, November 3, 1809; Dft. Ex. 152.
63. Idem.
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
366 |
When the Kickapoo chiefs assembled in early December, 1809, they readily agreed to the cession (7 Stat. 117; Royce Area 73) and also ceded, on December 9, 1809, an additional area along the Wabash up to Vermilion River (7 Stat. 117; Royce Area 74), which the "Miamies" had refused to include in the Treaty of September 30, 1809 at Fort Wayne, because it contained a Kickapoo village.64 The "Miamies" (i.e., the Miamis, Weas, and Eel Rivers) were supposed to agree to this additional cession.65
The Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809, fits into the general policy of land acquisition and extinguishment of Indian title to lands, by the United States, which had been in effect since the Treaty of Greenville of August 3, 1795. The Treaty of Fort Wayne was, together with the agreements it involved with the Weas and Kickapoos, the last ratified treaty made by the United States with any Indian group, until after the War of 1812. It was made, despite Harrison's assertions to the Secretary of War in his letter of May 16, 1809,66 at a time when there was much discontent being manifested by various Indian groups in Indiana Territory- especially by those groups attracted to the Shawnee Prophet and the anti-White doctrine he was spreading. The Treaty of Fort Wayne has been
64. Indiana Historical Collections, vol. 7, pp.
396-397; Dft. Ex. 97.
65. The Treaty of December 9, 1809 with the Kickapoos was ratified by the United States without the formal approval of the Miamis (7 Stat. 117). It was not until the treaty made with them on October 6, 1818 (7 Stat. 189) that the Miamis gave their formal assent to the Kickapoo cession of Royce Area 74 (7 Stat. 189:191). See fn. 66, below.
66. See pp. 344-345, this Report.
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
367 |
regarded, in fact, by several historians, as one of the final acts on the part of the United States which led to Indian hostilities against the United States in the War of 1812.67
Summary and Conclusions. The preliminary arrangements made by Harrison for the Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809 were, to say the least, peculiar. Harrison initiated the Treaty, and in urging that it be held, expressed a mistaken belief that danger of Indian hostilities was at an end, and that the Shawnee Prophet's forces were weak. He was warned by the Secretary of War not to disturb the Indians, but paid little heed to the warning. Before the President's authorization to hold the Treaty reached him, Harrison had already set official wheels in motion with some of the Indians concerned, and these Indians had agreed to meet him at Vincennes. In his correspondence with the Secretary of War Harrison neglected to mention his plans for obtaining the cession of the "Twelve Mile Purchase," (Royce Area 72). Instead of calling all the Indian groups whom he knew would be concerned with the proposed cessions together at one place and time, Harrison deliberately planned to hold, and did hold the Treaty piecemeal, with the Weas omitted from the first, and major, negotiations. This despite the fact that in the preceding Treaty Harrison
67. See, for example, Buley, The Old Northwest, vol. 1, pp.
104-105; Dft. Ex. 159. Cockrum, Pioneer History of Indiana, pp.
245-246; Dft. Ex.
160. Barnhart and Carmony, Indiana, vol. 1, pp.
125-126; Dft. Ex.
161. Dillon, History of Indiana, pp.
442-447; Dft. Ex.
162.
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
368 |
had made with the same groups (Treaty of Grouseland of August 21, 1805) Harrison had expressly engaged to consider "the Miamis, Eel River, and Weas. . .as joint owners of all the country on the Wabash and its waters, above the Vincennes tract." The cession Harrison proposed to negotiate for was in this country. Omission of the Piankashaws as party to the Treaty of September 30, 1809 is as inexplicable as admission of the Potawatomis to the same Treaty, on grounds of native use and occupancy of the region to be treated for. The Piankashaws were it is true insignificant in numbers by 1809, but some still existed. As we have shown in Chapter 7, the Piankashaws had used and occupied the western third of Royce Area 71, the area Harrison was proposing to negotiate for, from 1725 up to 1809. Up to 1790 they had exclusively used and occupied this western third; after that date they had shared occupancy with the Weas. The Potawatomis, if they had used the western third of Royce Area 71 at all, could only have used it for hunting after 1790; they had never lived in it.
The Treaty Fort Wayne and the negotiations for it are open to criticism on several points. Besides the chief point that Harrison, in negotiating this Treaty, paid little heed to actual native use and occupancy of areas ceded, it is evident that he was always willing to reverse former policies or commitments, if a currently dominant Indian group brought pressure upon him to do so, and if in his estimation it would help in gaining a cession. In his Treaty with the Delawares of August 18, 1804 Harrison agreed that the United States would "in future
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
369 |
consider the Delawares as the rightful owners of all the country which is bounded by the white river on the north, the Ohio on the south. . ." (7 Stat. 82); in his Treaty of Grouseland of August 21, 1805 the Delawares "determined to relinquish their claim to the said tract, and. . .release the United States from the guarantee made" (7 Stat. 91); in his Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809 "The Miamies explicitly acknowledge the equal right of the Delawares with themselves to the country watered by the White river" (7 Stat. 114). These reversals in "ownership" of the Ohio-White River lands could of course have been avoided if Harrison had elected to stand firm on his statement, made in Article 4 of the Treaty of August 18, 1804 with the Delawares, that the Delawares had "exhibited to the above-named commissioner of the United States [Harrison] sufficient proof of their right to all the country which lies between the Ohio and White river" (7 Stat. 81:82). Proof which was good in 1804 should have been equally good in 1805 and in 1809, provided it rested on a firm factual basis. But it is here that one questions the Harrison treaties. Both the Treaty of Grouseland and the Treaty of Fort Wayne were apparently based more on exigencies of the moment, than on facts relating to native use and occupancy of lands.
A second striking reversal, as well as an example of Harrison's opportunism, lay in his willingness to admit the Potawatomis to the Treaty of Fort Wayne of 1809. In 1805 he had thought, it will be recalled, that by Article 4 of the Treaty of Grouseland the Potawatomis had been barred from
Drs. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin
Emily J. Blasingham
Dorothy R. Libby:
An Anthropological Report on the
History of the Miamis, Weas, and
Eel River Indians, Vol. 2.
Chapter 10, pp. 364-369a.
369a |
interfering in future land sales to be made by the Miamis. But by 1809, with the Potawatomis strongly in favor of the cession of Royce Area 71, they were very welcome at the Fort Wayne Treaty. No effort was made to curb their ''interference," which was carried to the point of their threatening the Miamis with war, if the latter did not sign the Treaty.
In a Treaty based on exigencies, inconsistencies are not too surprising. At least one such appears in the Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809. The cession of Royce Area 71 was made with the proviso that the Weas, whom Harrison planned to treat with separately for reasons known only to himself, should accede to the cession of Area 71 before that cession became valid. Yet in the cession of Royce Area 72 (the Twelve Mile Strip) which also lay in part in the Wabash drainage, no proviso was made for Wea acquiescence.
To summarize our conclusions concerning the Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809 (7 Stat. 113). The preliminary arrangements for this Treaty were questionable. Omission of certain groups and inclusion of others, and the negotiation of the Treaty in three parts have never been satisfactorily explained. Little heed was given to Indian use and occupancy of the lands ceded; unsubstantiated claims were taken seriously; groups were placated- in short, a series of current exigencies are reflected in the Articles of the Treaty, and certain inconsistencies also crept in. The Treaty is not in accord with native use and occupancy- or non-use and non-occupancy- of the tracts ceded, as this is reflected in historical documents.
Go to
Chapter XI
Return
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume II Table of Contents
Go
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume I Table of Contents
Return to Ohio Valley -
Great Lakes Ethnohistory Archive Menu
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology List of Publications
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology Home
Last updated: 06 September 2000
Comments: gbl@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and TheTrustees of IndianaUniversity.