.
151 |
Chapter IV. The Eel River Indians.
Part I. The Eel River Indians Prior to the Treaty of Grouseland of August 21, 1805. From the evidence available we cannot ascertain with any degree of certainty exactly which group of Miami-Wea-Piankashaw-speaking peoples was ancestral to the Eel River Indians. Possibly, in 1718, one of the five villages "of Ouyatanons" on the Wabash River was located near the mouth of Eel River, ca. 50 river miles north and east of Ouiatanon. We know at that date there were five "Ouyatanons" villages on the Wabash River,
|
|
all built close together.
One is called ouyatanons, another piangnichias |
Whether one of these five "Ouyatanons" villages was comprised of a
group of Miami-Wea-Piankashaw-speaking peoples later known as Eel River
Indians, we do not know. It is possible that one did. We shall see that in
1792, one reference to the Eel Rivers called them "Waweachtanos
[Wea]."2
Actual references to Indians residing on or near Eel River begin in 1765. In that year, after the active hostilities of Pontiac's Uprising ceased, George Croghan, Pennsylvania Indian
1. Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 16, p. 376;
Dft. Ex.
64.
2. See below, p. 162.
152 |
trader and Indian agent, was sent west to attempt to conciliate the western Indians with promises and presents. As he proceeded down the Ohio Croghan and his party were captured near the mouth of the Wabash River by a party of Kickapoos and Mascoutens and marched overland to Ouiatanon, four miles below present Lafayette, Indiana, where they were released. From there Croghan and his party proceeded farther up the Wabash to the Maumee River, and eventually arrived at Detroit. In his diary Croghan noted the existence of a "Small Village of the Twighteves" six miles up the Eel River from its mouth. This village was "situated on a very delightful Spot of Ground on the Bank of the River."3 Apparently Croghan did not actually visit the village.
In a document written in 1774 the various routes from Detroit to the Illinois county were outlined, and distances between various geographical spots and settlements encountered on the way were indicated. No village near the mouth of Eel River is mentioned. We conclude however, from later evidence, that an Indian village probably did exist there at this date, and that a possible explanation for its non-appearance on this list was due to its location off the main route as the latter was set down in the 1774 document.
In 1778, after the outbreak of the American Revolution, George Rogers Clark, in command of a force of Virginia
3. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, vol. 10, pp. 263,
394, 397; vol. 11, 30-38; Dft. Ex. 67.
4. Haldimand Papers, B27, pp. 295-296; Dft. Ex. 121.
153 |
militia, captured the British settlements on the Mississippi (Kaskaskia, Cahokia, etc.) and Vincennes, on the Wabash. As a result of American occupation of these British villages, Henry Hamilton, Lieutenant Governor of Canada stationed at Detroit, set out to retake them, in order to prevent any further American expansion into the Great Lakes region.5 In early October, 1778, Hamilton, in command of a large party of British regular troops, Detroit militia and volunteers, and Indians, left from Detroit for Vincennes via the Maumee-Wabash water-way.6
In his two journals of his trip Hamilton mentions no Indian villages between the head of the Maumee at present-day Fort Wayne, Indiana and the vicinity of the mouth of Eel River at present-day Logansport, Indiana. From Hamilton's comments we conclude that the village at the mouth of Eel River was small. According to Hamilton, this "village of the Miamis," as he refers to it, was known as "Kinebec a maingong. . .which means Snake River, the Indians calling an Eeal Kin?ec as they do a snake likewise." In his mention of the Eel River village Hamilton wrote that he
went to the Village of the Miamis and had a long discourse with them on the subject of our design [to raise Indian war parties]- They said their small
5. Barnhart, Hamilton and Clark in the Revolution, pp. 37-40;
Dft. Ex.
66.
6.Ibid., pp. 103-106; Dft. Ex. 66.
7. Ibid., pp. 116 - 128; Dft. Ex. 66. Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society, vol. 12, pp. 16-20; Dft. Ex. 71.
154 |
numbers did not admit of sending off many warriors but they would shew their good disposition, and immediately the chiefs named for War, ten of those present- The Old Wolf was appointed their chief, He was one who had insulted the Rebels at St. Vincennes [present Vincennes, Indiana]8
It might be noted that Hamilton spoke directly with the chiefs of the Eel River village on this occasion. The Miami chiefs of the Maumee towns at Kekionga (Fort Wayne, Indiana) had nothing to do with this conference Hamilton held with the Eel River Indians.
Fourteen miles below the mouth of Eel River Hamilton met Weas.9 British control of the Wabash Valley was only briefly re-established by Hamilton. In late February, 1779 Clark retook Vincennes, capturing Hamilton and his British troops.10 Shortly after the reoccupation of Vincennes Clark began to counteract any possible remaining British influence among the Wabash Valley Indians, calling "together the Neighboring Nations, Piankeshaws, Kickepoes & others that would not listen to Hamilton]."11 Apparently the Wabash groups abstained from taking sides during the remainder of the year 1779, since there are no references to active hostility by any of these groups against either the British or the Americans. The next year
8. Ibid., pp.
124-125, 128; Dft. Ex. 66.
9. Ibid., pp. 128-129; Dft. Ex. 66.
10. Ibid., pp. 73-76; Dft. Ex. 66.
11. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, vol. 8, p. 146; Dft. Ex. 67.
155 |
however, the situation changed. In March, 1780 the British officer Major Arent S. De Peyster reported that the "Wabash Indians," as well as some Indians from Michilimackinac, had promised to keep Clark's troops bottled up at his post at the Falls of the Ohio, at present-day Louisville, Kentucky.12
In October, 1781, Clark reported the growing uneasiness of the "Wabash Indians" over the lack of any positive action by American forces against the British, and also their concern about the lack of powder and presents from the Americans. He was afraid that "necessity would oblige the whole of them to take up the hatchet in a short time to clothe themselves."13 In April, 1782, "Kickatassia, Chief from the Eel River" and Misshilinackwaa, a Wea chief, accompanied by "a number of their warriors," attended a war council with De Peyster at Detroit. At this council De Peyster reiterated his requests for raids, for the capture of prisoners and for the kind treatment of these prisoners.14
After the close of the Revolutionary War British and American officials were concerned with stopping Indian raids on the American frontier. On May 3, 1783 De Peyster expressed concern that this could be done, thus:
I doubt not however, that I shall find some difficulty to restrain the Wabash Indians, but nothing shall be
12. Historical Collections of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, vol.
9, p. 580;
vol. 10, pp.
378-379; Dft. Ex. 82.
13. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, vol. 8, pp. 606-607; Dft. Ex. 67.
14. Historical Collections of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, vol. 10, pp. 567-569; Dft. Ex. 82.
156 |
neglected to bring it about. I have indulged them 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].15
In the early summer of 1783 Ephraim Douglass, emissary from the American Continental Congress, met many of the western Indian groups in a council at Detroit. However, the Eel Rivers were not mentioned as one of the eleven Indian groups which treated with Douglass.16
In early July of 1786 the French inhabitants of Vincennes were warned of an impending Indian attack on the Americans who lived at Vincennes. According to the warning, there were "about four hundred and fifty" Indians "from various nations and tribes" encamped 15 leagues (ca. 37-40 miles) north of Vincennes. Some of these Indians were Eel Rivers and Piankashaws. After listening to many speeches and receiving as many presents as the limited resources of Vincennes would allow, all the Indians finally withdrew and peace reigned again, temporarily at least, on the Wabash.17
Twice, in 1785 and 1787, the United States planned to hold a treaty with the Indians of the Wabash and others at Vincennes, but each time "it was judged best to hold no treaty with them."18 In 1787 the "Wabash Indians" (probably including the Eel Rivers), were hostile towards the Americans. During May, 1787,
15. Ibid., vol. 11, p. 363;
Dft. Ex.
82.
16. Burton, Ephraim Douglas, pp. 269-270; Dft. Ex. 94.
17. Kinnaird, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, pt. 2, pp. 175-181; Dft. Ex. 68.
18. Journal of the Continental Congress, vol. 28, pp. 125-126, 180-181, 486-487; Dft. Ex. 81. Smith, St. Clair Papers, vol. 2, p. 20; Dft. Ex. 95.
157 |
Colonel Josiah Harmar, commander of the United States Army, and then stationed in Ohio, reported:
|
|
Several parties of the
Wabash Indians |
In October, 1788, Major John Francis Hamtramck, stationed at Fort Knox
(Vincennes, Indiana), reported that 300 warriors from the Wabash Indian groups
were again in Kentucky.20 According to Hamtramck's estimate made the
preceding spring there were ca. 780 warriors in the five Wabash Indian
towns. Of this total, 150 were Eel River warriors.21
The following spring (1789), the Wabash Indians were again raiding the American frontier. In April of 1789 Hamtramck reported that "all the Wabash Indians (except those that are out hunting) have gone to war in Kentucky."22 In May, both the Eel Rivers and the Weas or Kickapoos plundered Vincennes.23
By October of the year 1789 Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio River, was told to find out what the disposition of the Wabash Indians was in regard to the United States. Could peace be obtained with
19. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 21;
Dft. Ex.
95.
20. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 19, p. 124; Dft. Ex. 79.
21. Ibid., vol. 19, p. 80; Dft. Ex. 79.
22. Ibid., vol. 19, p. 166; Dft. Ex. 79.
23. Ibid., vol. 19, pp. 169-170; Dft. Ex. 79. Quaife, ed., John Askin Papers, vol. 1, pp. 319-320; Dft. Ex. 91.
158 |
them, or would force be necessary.24 In January, 1790 Harmar wrote to Hamtramck, desiring him to send a speech from St. Clair to the Wabash Indians and the Miami, demanding positive proof of their peace and friendship.25 Hamtramck delayed sending this message for several months, since most of the Indians at this time were still at their wintering grounds.26 However in early April, 1790 Antoine Gamelin, long-time resident of Vincennes, started up the Wabash with St. Clair's message to the various Indian groups. He visited the Eel River village twice, once on his way upstream to the Miami villages of the Maumee, and again on his trip downriver to Vincennes. Neither time was he able to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Eel River Indians. On both visits the "head chief" was absent, and the Eel River Indians declared that they could give no answer in his absence. This attitude is in contradistinction to that expressed by the majority of Valley groups. These latter had deferred to a future decision of the Miami of the Maumee, and these latter, in turn had stated that they had to consult the "Lake Indians" as well as the British commandant at Detroit, before answering.27
24. Smith, St. Clair Papers, vol. 2, pp.
125-126; Dft. Ex. 95.
25. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 131; Dft. Ex. 95.
26. Hamtramck to Sargent, February 24, [1790] Dft. Ex. 75. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 19, pp. 223-224; Dft. Ex. 79.
27. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 93-94, Dft. Ex. 96.
159 |
As a result St. Clair resolved to attack the Wabash Indian and Miami villages. One army under Harmar was to raid the Miami and other villages on the Maumee, while a smaller force, under Hamtramck, was to attack as many of the Wabash Indian towns as possible.2830
After the fiasco of the 1790 campaigns against the Wabash and Maumee River Indian villages, it was decided that a second series of campaigns should be undertaken unless the Indians sued for peace before early May. However, there was no general movement towards attaining peace made by the Indians,31 so a concerted campaign was planned against the Maumee villages by the United States army under the command of St. Clair. Subsidiary raids, up to three if necessary, were to be made by groups of mounted Kentucky volunteers against the Wabash Valley towns.32
28. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 72,
Dft. Ex.
96. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 19, p. 237;
Dft. Ex.
79.
29. Indiana Historical Society Publications, vol. 79, pp. 259-263; Dft. Ex. 19 [sic- should be vol. 19, Dft. Ex. 79].
30. Ibid., vol. 19, pp. 214, 266; Dft. Ex. 79.
31. Historical Collections of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, vol. 24, pp. 186-187; Dft. Ex. 82. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 149 - - 165; Dft. Ex. 96.
32. Historical Collections of the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, vol. 24, pp. 186-190; Dft. Ex. 82.
160 |
The first raid on the Wabash towns was made against the Indians (Wea and Kickapoo) at Ouiatanon, and against Kethtipecanunk, an "important" but unidentified village at the mouth of the Tippecanoe River.33 The second raid two months later under the direction of Brig. Gen. James Wilkinson, saw the destruction of Kenapaquomaqua, the Eel River town "scattered along Eel River for full three miles." At the time Wilkinson attacked most of the inhabitants of this town were absent for various purposes. The Americans killed nine Eel River Indians, captured 34, and released one White captive. They also burned all the cabins of the Eel Rivers and cut down their growing corn, before leaving in search of Kickapoo villages.34
Apparently the American raids on the Wabash Indian towns were successful in convincing the Eel River Indians of the desirability of peace with the United States. In early March of 1792 two Eel River and seven Wea chiefs appeared at Vincennes and made known to Hamtramck "their intention. . .to be at peace with the United States." On March 14, 1792, a temporary agreement calling for peace and friendship with the United States was signed by Hamtramck and these nine chiefs. The two Eel River Indian signers were Peankeunshaw and Checunememshaw, or Chicokenemanshaw.35
33. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 131-133;
Dft. Ex.
96. See p. 124,
this Report.
34. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 133-135; Dft. Ex. 96.
35. Carter, Territorial Papers, vol. 2, pp. 374-375, 380-381; Dft. Ex. 69.
Go to
Continuation of Chapter IV
Go to
Chapter V
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: 5
September 2000
Comments: gbl@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.