49 |
None of these chiefs- Le Gros Loup, Pacane, Hibou, and Le petit gris- spoke for the Eel Rivers in the various councils held with Hamilton. The chief or chiefs of the village on Eel River are not named; the only Eel River name mentioned by Hamilton was that of "The Old Wolf," who "was appointed" leader of the 10 Eel River Warriors chosen to accompany Hamilton.101
After leaving the mouth of Eel River the next Indian village Hamilton found on the Wabash was the Wea village at Ouiattanon or present-day Lafayette, Indiana.102
Some of the Miamis accompanied Hamilton all the way to Vincennes. Pacane and his group did not leave Hamilton at Vincennes until late January, 1779. Pacane promised before he left that he would return "in the Spring by way of the falls of Ohio [present-day Louisville, Kentucky]." Two Chippewa who were going to spend the remainder of the winter on the Maumee also promised to return to Vincennes by the same route.103
British control of the Wabash Valley, re-established by Hamilton, did not last through the next spring, however. In late February, 1779 George Rogers Clark re-took Vincennes, capturing Hamilton and the British troops.104 Shortly
101. Ibid., p. 125;
Dft. Ex.
66.
102. Ibid., pp. 128-132; Dft. Ex. 66.
103. Ibid., p. 165; Dft. Ex. 66.
104. Ibid., pp. 73-76; Dft. Ex. 66.
50 |
afterward, in an endeavour to counteract any possible remaining British influence among the Wabash Valley Indians, Clark called together "the Neighbouring Nations, Piankeshaws, Kickepoes, & others that would not listen to [Hamilton]." A few days later "some Chipoways [Chippewa] and others who had been with Mr. Hamilton, came in and begged me to excuse their blindness and take them into favour."105 On March 15, 1779, a party of Piankashaw, Peoria, and Miami came to Clark at Vincennes and assured him of their "fidelity &c. to the Americans and [to] beg their Protection."106
Apparently the Indian groups inhabiting the Wabash Valley remained neutral throughout the remainder of 1779, since we have not found any references to active hostility by these groups against either the British or the Americans. However this situation changed in 1780. By March of that year Major Arent S. De Peyster, the British army officer who replaced Hamilton in command at Detroit, had conferred with the "principal chiefs of the Hurons, Pottawatamies, Chippawas, Ottawas, Ouiattons [Wea], Miamis, Ouiats [Wea] and the Pirorias [Peoria], [and] with the Keekapoos." These Indians declared in council that if the British government would send a few soldiers, "they would all rise & assist
105. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, vol. 8, pp.
146-147; Dft. Ex. 67.
106. Ibid., vol. 8, p. 163; Dft. Ex. 67.
51 |
their elder brothers, and act in conjunction in future for the good of the King's Service."107
In November of 1780 the Miami were called upon to prove their loyalty to the British. In the latter part of October, a Frenchman named Augustin La Balme led a party of volunteers from the Illinois country and from Vincennes on an abortive raid against Detroit. La Balme and his force arrived at the Miami villages at the head of the Maumee River after the majority of their inhabitants had gone on the warpath or on the winter hunt. However, when a few of their war parties had returned the Miami attacked La Balme's troops and, according to the British account, killed between 30 and 40 of La Balme's men.108
In April, 1781, Pacane reiterated his pro-British feelings, saying that he would only visit Vincennes if he were raiding it. That same month another Miami chief (Key ta ga yen) attended a council at Detroit held with representatives from the Iroquois, Huron, Ottawa, Shawnee, Chippewa, and Potawatomi. At this council the various Indian groups were asked to raid the American frontier,109 and during the summer of 1781 the Miamis actually did so. In October, 1781 seven
107. Historical Collections of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society,
vol. 9, p. 580,
vol. 10, pp.
378-379; Dft. Ex. 82.
108. Ibid., vol. 10, pp. 448-449; Dft. Ex. 82.
109. Ibid., vol. 19, pp. 595-596, vol. 10, pp. 472-475; Dft. Ex. 82.
52 |
scalps were turned in to De Peyster at Detroit by some young Miami warriors who apologized for the absence of their chiefs and most of their warriors. They stated that the Miami chiefs and 70 warriors had been on their way to Detroit, but that they
were obliged to return to our Village immediately, on having had the report from a runner detached from thence that the Enemy was advancing towards the Miami Town from St Vincennes.110
Apparently this rumored American raid on the Miami in retaliation for La Balme's defeat the preceeding year did not occur. At least we have not found any record of such a raid in the contemporary literature.
The Maumee village was not the only group of Miami-Wea-Piankashaw-speaking peoples who were loyal to the British. On April 22, 1782 Kickatassia, "Chief from the Eel River" attended one of De Peyster's war councils at Detroit at which there were also present a Wea chief and a group of Eel River and Wea warriors. At the council De Peyster urged that the Indians engage in raids and capture prisoners, and that the latter be accorded kind treatment.111
About two months later, on June 14, 1782, De Peyster held another Indian conference at which the Miami proper were represented. In all about "fifty Chiefs and Warriors of the Qui, qu, a pous [Kickapoo], Mascontings [Mascouten], Ouiattanong [Wea] Pianquishaw, Miamis and Payaurias [Peoria] Nations" attended. De Peyster expressed a rather jaundiced
110. Ibid., vol. 10, pp.
532-533; Dft. Ex. 82.
111. Ibid., vol. 10, pp. 567-569; Dft. Ex. 82.
53 |
view as to the motives of most of the Indian groups in attendance at the June conference. He wrote that "they promise well but seem to come more on account of trading than otherwise." Since he doubted "the sincerity of their protestations . . . . [he] obliged them to give a proof of their attachment by sending thirty of their warriors" to raid the American frontier. However De Peyster's doubts did not extend to the Miami. In the June council he told
|
|
Pe, can, the Miami
Chief that he [De Peyster] did not address him |
On July 27, 1782, De Peyster reported that he had received a "Speech from
Le Gris" assuring him "of the fidelity of the Miamis who have sent
off thirty of their Warriours" to raid the frontier.113
1783-1805. After the end of the Revolutionary War one of the first concerns of both British and American officials was to stop Indian raids on the American frontier. On May 3, 1783 De Peyster expressed some doubt that such a policy could be effected.
I doubt not however, that I shall find some difficulty to restrain the Wabash Indians, but nothing shall be neglected that may in any wise contribute to bring it about. I have indulged them
112. Ibid., vol. 10, p. 541,
586-589;
Dft. Ex.
82.
113. Ibid., vol. 10, p. 600; Dft. Ex. 82. The "Le Gris" mentioned by De Peyster and later by other contemporary writers was evidently one and the same with "Le Petite Gris" Hamilton met in 1778. See pp. 46-47 and fn. 94, this Chapter.
54 |
with a trader, in order to induce them to stay at home and follow their hunting- It will also prevent so great a run upon the Kings store [for presents for them].114
In the early summer of 1783 the Continental Congress sent the American emissary, Ephraim Douglass, to carry the news of peace to the western Indians.115 Douglass wrote to Benjamin Lincoln, Secretary of War:
On the 6th [of July] I attended the Council [at Detroit] which Colonel De Peyster held with the Indians. . . After delivering his business of calling them together, he published to them your Letter and pressed them to continue in the strictest amity with the Subjects of the United States,- represented to them the folly of continuing hostilities, and assured them that he could by no means give them any future assistance against the people of America.
At this meeting were the Chiefs of eleven Indian Nations, comprehending all the Tribes as far South as the Wabash. They were Chipewas, Otawas, Wyandots or Hurons, Shawneze [Shawnee], Delawares, Kickaboos, Oweochtanoos [Wea], Miamis, Pootawotamies and Pienkishas [Piankashaw] with a part of the Senecas, most of whom gave evident marks of their Satisfaction at seeing a subject of the United States in that Country.116
After the Treaty of Fort McIntosh was signed on January 21, 1785 it was decided by the Continental Congress that it would be necessary to hold a treaty with "the Potawatomis, Miamis, Piankashaw, and other western tribes" at Vincennes, in order to establish a boundary between these groups and the
114. Ibid., vol. 11, p. 363;
Dft. Ex.
82.
115. Butterfield, Washington-Irvine Correspondence, p. 188; Dft. Ex. 136.
116. Burton, Ephraim Douglass, pp. 269-270; Dft. Ex. 94.
55 |
United States.117 Due to the lateness of the season, the site for holding this treaty was changed from Vincennes to the mouth of the Great Miami River,118 and the Indians on the Wabash River did not meet with a United States treaty commissioner until 1792.
In 1785 United States officials were relatively unfamiliar with the Great Lakes-Ohio Valley region. Among the Papers of the Continental Congress for that year is a document entitled "A List of the Western Nations of Indians contiguous to the Post at Muskingum" which lists the location of various Indian groups. It is interesting to note that according to this list no Indian groups lived west of the Wabash and Lake Michigan. This territory was unknown to most Americans at this date. According to the list there were 400 "Picts or Twightwees [Miami]" warriors whose village was located "Near Miami Fort."119 We conclude that the "Miami Fort" mentioned above was the old French and British fort, which was destroyed during Pontiac's Uprising, located at the head of the Maumee River. As we shall see below, the Miami village was still located at this spot in 1790.
In December, 1786 the Miami took part in the large Indian council near Detroit called by Joseph Brant, a Mohawk chief. At this council a message was drafted to the Continental Congress in which the Indians- Six Nations, Hurons, Ottawas,
117. Journal of the Continental Congress, vol. 28, pp.
125-126, 180-181; Dft. Ex. 81.
118. Ibid., vol. 28, pp. 486-487; Dft. Ex. 81.
119. Papers of the Continental Congress, 150, I, folio 156; Dft. Ex. 86.
56 |
Potawatomis, Chippewas, Miamis, Shawnees, Delawares, the "Wabash Indians" and a small group of Cherokees who recently had migrated north to join the Shawnee- designated the Ohio River as the boundary between the United States and the Indians.120 Just which Miami chiefs attended this council has not, as yet, been ascertained.
From 1786 to at least 1790 we find what was apparently a notable split of the Miami of Kekionga into pro-American and pro-British (or Indian) factions. As early as 1764 Pacane had been called "the great chief of the Miami.'' In 1786 Pacane's band of Miami was friendly to the Americans. In the spring of that year however this band and some Piankashaw from Vincennes, also friendly, were attacked without provocation by some American settlers who not only killed six Indians and wounded seven, but caused all the Indians to lose the products of their winter hunt.121 Despite this outrage Pacane did not immediately change his political alliance, for the next year we find that he was one of two Indian hunters who accompanied Harmar on his overland tour of 1787 from Vincennes to Kaskaskia and return.122
In 1788 Pacane went to attend the British-called Indian council at Roche de Bout on the Maumee and intended to inform
120. Stone, Life of Joseph Brant, vol. 2, p. 265;
Dft. Ex.
89.
121. Kinnaird, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, pt. 2, pp. 179-180; Dft. Ex. 68.
122. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 19, p. 47; Dft. Ex. 79.
57 |
the American authorities of what transpired there.123 That same summer saw a repetition of the first unprovoked attack of two years before. A body of unauthorized Kentuckians set upon some Piankashaw of "La Demoisel's" band and Pacane's band of Miami, on the upper part of Embarrass River.124 After being attacked Pacane's band went to Terre Haute to await his return from Roche de Bout.125 News of the raid caused Pacane to return from the Maumee before the opening of the Indian Conference,126 and the following winter he and a small group of Miami left the United States and went over the Mississippi into Spanish Louisiana. On January 12, 1790, the commandant of Fort Don Carlos III, a Spanish post on the Arkansas River, wrote that
|
|
The great chief of the Miami
nation |
Pacane and his small band were not the only trans-Mississippi Miami at this
date.
|
|
Five days after his [Pacan
's] arrival |
123. Ibid., vol. 19, pp. 108,
116;
Dft. Ex.
79.
124. Carter, Territorial Papers, vol. 2, p. 159; Dft. Ex. 69.
125. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 19, pp. 115-117, 150; Dft. Ex. 79.
126. Ibid., vol. 19, p. 124; Dft. Ex. 79.
127. Kinnaird, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, pt. 2, p. 292; Dft. Ex. 68.
58 |
|
|
At the same time he asked. .
.for permission |
Pacane was told he must give up his English medal. This he did, and received a
Spanish medal instead.128
Pacane's absence from his former village of Kekionga was also noted in a contemporary British source. During the winter of 1789-1790 a young Detroit trader, Henry Hay, then in residence at the Miami towns at the head of the Maumee wrote that Pacane was then in the Illinois and that in his absence his village was under the leadership of
|
|
his nephew one Mr. Jean
Baptist |
How long Pacane and Hibou remained west of the Mississippi is not known, but both were back by about 1800.129a Neither of these two chiefs signed the Treaty of Greenville in 1795 (7 Stats. 49:54). It is possible that these two Miami chiefs and their people were among the Shawnee, Peoria, Miami and Piankashaw who were reported wintering near Cape Girardeau, Missouri in 1793-1794.130
We turn now to those Miami who remained in Indiana. In May, 1788 Col. John Francis Hamtramck, an American officer, made an estimate of "the number of fiting men in different villages on the Wabash and at the Maumee." Hamtramck ascribed
128. Idem. Also pt. 2, pp.
280-281; Dft. Ex. 68.
129. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 7, pp. 313-314; Dft. Ex. 79.
129a. See p. 72, this Report.
130. Houck, Spanish Regime in Missouri, vol. 2, pp. 60, 63; Dft. Ex. 88. Kinnaird, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, pt. 2, p. 335, pt. 3, pp. 107, 110-111; Dft. Ex. 68.
Go to
Continuation of Chapter II
Go to
Chapter III
Return
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume I Table of Contents
Go
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume II 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: 29
August 2000
Comments: gbl@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.