|
Chapter VII: pp. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 7, pp. 296-305.
296 |
given a quantity of land to the French.- We have given to the French the land between Cutpoint [Point Coupee] above the Post [Vincennes] and White River below the Post, with as much on each side of the Wabash as there is between those two marks. We have not only given this land to them for themselves only, but also for them, their children and children's children forever.-188
Thus, as Putnam pointed out in his letter, the Indians disclaimed the validity of the 1775 sale to the speculators, but did affirm their former transfer of lands to the French along the Wabash River from Point Coupee to the mouth of White River.189
Some 686 Indians (247 men and 439 women and children) were present for the treaty of Vincennes between the United States and the "Kickapoo of the Wabash," the Eel Rivers, Weas, Mascoutens, Potawatomis, Ottawas, Piankashaws, Kaskaskias, and Peorias.190 The signers, 31 in all, included five "Eel Creeks," eight "Weaughtanas" (Wea), three "Potawatamies," two "Miscoutins" (Mascoutens), one "Tawah" (Ottawa), three "Kickapoos of the Wabash," five "Piankeshaws," two "Kaskaskias,' and two "Peorians."191
188. Ibid., p. 358; Dft. Ex. 98.
189. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 340; Dft. Ex. 96.
190. Buell, The Memoirs of Rufus Putnam, p. 121; Dft. Ex. 98. Carter, Territorial Papers, vol. 2, p. 414; Dft. Ex. 69.
191. List of Signers of 1792 Treaty; Dft. Ex. 76.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
297 |
This treaty was not ratified by Congress, chiefly because the right of preemption, if and when the Indians should want to sell the lands guaranteed to them, was not specifically reserved to the United States in the treaty.192
Hostilities continued for two more years between the other Northwestern Indians and the United States, until finally Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne defeated the Indians decisively at Fallen Timbers on the lower Maumee River on August 20, 1794. After this defeat the Indians agreed to make peace.
Capt. John Wade and Ens. Thomas Bodley of the United States army both traveled from Fort Knox to Fort Wayne in May and June of 1795 and made separate reports on the country along the Wabash and the navigation of the river. Neither was very specific about the affiliations of those Indians they met, until they reached the Tippecanoe River. Capt. Wade, for example, came to a hunting camp from 8-10 Indians four days after he left Vincennes. This was probably at the northern edge of Royce Area 71, but what Indians he met there are not specified. Seven days after he left Vincennes Wade came to a village of 22 families of "Wabash Indians" three-quarters of a mile from the Wabash; with these families were five chiefs. Since it took Wade 17 days to get from Vincennes to Tippecanoe, this village was probably in Area 71 in the vicinity of Terre Haute, which is located on the Wabash about half way between
192. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 338; Dft. Ex. 96.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
298 |
Vincennes and Tippecanoe. The chiefs at the village at Terre Haute (?) made a speech to Wade assuring him of the friendship of the Wabash and Kickapoo Indians, and informing him that they had just come to their new location and needed seed corn for planting. In another section of his report Wade mentioned an "old French fort" located at Terre Haute. Other references to this fort have not been found. Possibly Wade mistook the remains of an old Indian village for an old fort. On the ninth day of his trip Wade breakfasted at a hunting camp (unidentified) consisting of two families. The 12th day he breakfasted with two familes of Kickapoo who were going to "the weaw." He does not mention a village at the mouth of Vermilion River or at Ouiatanon. On the last, or 17th day of his trip ''Wade met two Indian women and three children, an Indian man and woman returning from hunting, and three Indian men and one woman. When Wade arrived at Tippecanoe on May 24, he noticed the difference between the friendly "Wabash Indians" whom he had met up to this point and the Potawatomis he encountered at Tippecanoe. The Potawatomis were evidently in the British interest.193
Ens. Bodley, in the account of his trip up the Wabash, also met some "Wabash Indians" who were raising corn at Terre Haute in 1795. This may be the same village Wade referred to as seven days distant upriver from Vincennes. At the mouth
193. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Mss. Wayne Papers, vol. 41. John Wade, Extracts of a Journal . . . May 2-June 2, 1795; Dft. Ex. 74.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
299 |
of Vermilion River Bodley mentioned an old village site with an extensive area of cleared ground. At Ouiatanon Bodley described the "old village" on the southeast shore. On the northwest shore of the river he mentioned the old French village and reported that about 300 acres of land had been cultivated there by the Indians. Bodley found a village of Potawatomis and Weas about a half mile up the Tippecanoe River, with 200 acres under cultivation.194 In a letter which accompanied his report he added that about 50 Potawatomis and some Weas from this village came to his camp at the mouth of the Tippecanoe and demanded corn, tobacco, clothes and powder.195
From these two journals it seems evident that at this time there were not many Indians located on the lower Wabash, the recently-established village in the vicinity of Terre Haute being practically the only one. The village at the Vermilion River does not seem to have been occupied in May and June of 1795; nor were there any Indians at Ouiatanon. It is possible that some of the Indians who perhaps lived at these points had gone to Greenville, Ohio for the treaty of August 3, 1795 (7 Stat. 49) which Wayne had called. This might account for the absence of some of the Weas and the Kickapoos from the Wabash, but not for the Piankashaws, who did not attend the Treaty.
194. Ibid., vol. 41. Thomas Bodley, Observations on the Navigation . . . June 12, 1795; Dft. Ex. 74.
195. Ibid., vol. 41. Thomas Bodley to Anthony Wayne, Fort Wayne, June 2 [sic- 12], 1795; Dft. Ex. 74.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
300 |
The Treaty of Greenville, a treaty of peace between the United States and the Indians of the Northwest, was held from June 16 to August 10, 1795. The western boundary established by this treaty included only a very small area in the southeastern part of the State of Indiana, and did not define Indian occupancy to the west of this boundary line. The treaty superceded and rescinded previous Indian cessions to the west and north of the Greenville line, save for a few areas the United States reserved for forts or trading centers. Two such areas north and south of Royce Area 71 which the United States specifically reserved were a six-mile square area at "the Ouatanon or old Weea towns on the Wabash river" (7 Stat. 49:50) and ''The post of St. Vincennes on the river Wabash, and the lands adjacent, of which the Indian title has been extinguished" (7 Stat. 49:51).
A point of interest at the treaty was the speech made by Little Turtle, a Miami chief, during Council proceedings on July 22, 1795. This speech was as follows:
General WAYNE: I hope you will pay attention to what I now say to you. I wish to inform you where your younger brothers, the Miamies, live, and, also, the Pattawatamies of St. Joseph's, together with the Wabash Indians. You have pointed out to us the boundary line between the Indians and the United States, but I now take the liberty to inform you, that that line cuts off from the Indians a large portion of country, which has been enjoyed by my forefathers time immemorial, without molestation or dispute. The print of my ancestors' houses are every where to be seen in
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 7, pp. 296-305.
301 |
this portion. I was a little astonshed at hearing you, and my brothers who are now present, telling each other what business you had transacted together heretofore at Muskingum, concerning this country. It is well known by all my brothers present, that my forefather kindled the first fire at Detroit; from thence he extended his lines to the head waters of Scioto; from thence, to its mouth of the Wabash, and from thence to Chicago, on Lake Michigan; at this place I first saw my elder brothers the Shawanese. I have now informed you of the boundaries of the Miami nation, where the Great Spirit placed my forefather a long time ago, and charged him not to sell or part with his lands, but to preserve them for his posterity. This charge has been handed down to me. I was much surprised to find that my other brothers differed so much from me on this subject: for their conduct would lead one to suppose, that the Great Spirit, and their forefathers, had not given them the same charge that was give to me, but, on the contrary, had directed them to sell their lands to any white man who wore a hat, as soon as he should ask it of them. Now, elder brother, your younger brothers, the Miamies, have pointed out to you their country, and also to our brothers present.196
It is by no means clear, as has often been assumed, that Little Turtle was speaking solely of the Miamis' claims to lands in this speech, since in his prefatory remarks he referred not only to the Miamis but to the Potawatomis of St. Joseph and to the "Wabash Indians." Later in the council proceedings Little
196. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 570-571; Dft. Ex. 96.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
302 |
Beaver, a "Wabash Indian" (Wea) chief, speaking through Little Turtle,197 made it very clear that the Weas considered they owned the lands around Ouiatanon, which lands lay, of course, within the broad limits of Little Turtle's claim.198 Likewise the New Corn, a St. Joseph Potawatomi chief199 who stated his "nation" consisted "of one thousand men, who live at, and between Detroit and Lake Michigan" in no wise intimated that the Miamis owned the Detroit-Lake Michigan region, but spoke of them thus: "We have the Miamis for our allies, and we mutually assist each other."200 Since neither Little Beaver nor The New Corn disputed Little Turtle's speech, we conclude that they both took his prefatory remarks literally and thus were in agreement with the rest of his speech.
Wayne responded to Little Turtle's speech two days later, pointing out that the boundaries depicted by Little Turtle
enclose a very large space of country indeed; they embrace, if I mistake not, all the lands on which all the nations now present live, as well as those which have been ceded to United States. The lands which have been ceded have, within these three days, been acknowledged by the Ottawas, Chippewas, Pattawatamies, Wyandots, Delawares, and Shawanese. The Little Turtle says, the prints of his forefathers' houses are every where to be seen within these boundaries. Younger brother, it is true, these prints are to be observed; but, at the same time, we
197. The Little Beaver had a cold and could not "speak well;" he therefore had his "brother, the Little Turtle" speak for him (ibid., vol. 1, p. 577; Dft. Ex. 96).
198. Idem.
199. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 564; Dft. Ex. 96.
200. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 572; Dft. Ex. 96.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
303 |
discover the marks of French possessions throughout this country, which were established long before we were born. These have since been in the occupancy of the British, who must, in their turn, relinquish them to the United States, when they, the French and Indians, will be all as one people.- [A white string.]
I will point out to you a few places where I discover strong traces of these establishments; and first of all, I find at Detroit a very strong print, where the fire was first kindled by your forefathers; next, at Vincennes, on the Wabash; again at Musquiton, on the same river; a little higher up that stream, they are to be seen at Ouitanon; I discover another strong trace at Chicago, another on the St. Joseph's of Lake Michigan; I have seen distinctly the prints of a French and a British post at the foot of the rapids, now in their possession; prints, very conspicuous, are on the great Miami, which were possessed by the French, forty five years ago; and another trace is very distinctly to be seen at Sandusky.
It appears to me, that, if the Great Spirit, as you say, charged your forefathers to preserve their lands entire for their posterity, they have paid very little regard to the sacred injunction: for I see they have parted with those lands to your fathers the French, and the English are now, or have been, in possession of them all: . . .201
One of the former French-British "establishments" mentioned by Wayne, "Musquiton," between Vincennes and Ouiatanon, could have been close to Royce Area 71. The existence of any such
201. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 573, Dft. Ex. 96.
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 7, pp. 296-305.
304 |
establishment was, however, denied by the Wea chief Little Beaver, who spoke through Little Turtle as follows:
You have told us of a place possessed by the French, called Musquiton. We have lived at our village [Ouiatanon] a long time; it is very surprising that we should never know any thing about it. The French lived at Vincennes, where they were permitted to settle by my forefathers, who told them they should have a small quantity of land for the cattle, &c. on the east, out none on the west side of the Wabash.202
"Musquiton" was probably a confusion for "Mascouten;" the Mascoutens had occupied lands at Ouiatanon in the vicinity of Terre Haute during the eighteenth century. Only one other reference to "Musquiton" on the Wabash has been found. On a map drawn by Thomas Hutchins, former British officer, which was published in 1778 an "Old Musquiton Fort" is located on the west bank of the Wabash about two-thirds of the way between Vincennes and Terre Haute, immediately west of Royce Area 71. An "Old Musquiton Village" is located, on the same map, on the east bank above Vincennes a short distance south of Area 71.203 Wayne probably based his statement on the data in Hutchins' 1778 map.204
Little Beaver's delimitation of French rights to lands at Vincennes was not in accord with the bounds of the tract which the Piankashaws had deeded to the land speculators in 1775,
202. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 577, Dft. Ex. 96.
203. Tucker, Indian Villages, Pl. 29, and text, pp. 9-10; Dft. Ex. 106.
204. In 1781 Hutchins had been commissioned as geographer of the United States (ibid., pp. 9-10; Dft. Ex.106).
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 7, pp. 296-305.
305 |
nor with Piankashaw statements made to Putnam at Vincennes in 1792, when they acknowledged French rights to lands along the Wabash on both sides of that river from Point Coupee to the mouth of White River.205 But no Piankashaws were at Greenville to correct Little Beaver.
The existence of a Potawatomi village on the Wabash north of Royce Area 71 was attested to at Greenville by The Sun, a Potawatomi chief, who stated that the village he came from was "a day's walk below the Wea towns on the Wabash."206
Summary and Conclusions on Native Locations in Royce Area 71 during English and American Sovereignty (1760-1795). Several indefinite locations of Indian groups on the Wabash during the early part of the period 1760-1795 were noted by contemporary writers and can be summarized as follows. Sir William Johnson reported in 1763 that the Kickapoos, Mascoutens, Piankashaws, and Weas were living in the neighborhood of Ouiatanon and on the Wabash; Colonel Bouquet in 1764 listed Kickapoo, Wea, and Piankashaw as living on the Wabash; Lt. Fraser in 1766 cited five groups of Indians living on the Wabash, the Weas, Kickapoos, Mascoutens, Piankashaws, and Vermilion Indians; Hutchins in 1768 wrote that Weas, Kickapoos, Mascoutens, and Piankashaws were living on the Wabash; St. Ange in 1769 referred to Piankashaws, Weas, Kickapoos, Mascoutens,
205. See pp. 259-260, this Report.
206. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 580; Dft. Ex. 96.
Go to Continuation of Chapter VII
Go to Chapter VIII
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: 04 September 2000
Comments: gbl@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.